[CCWG-ACCT] Your public comment re replacement of IANA provider

[Avri Doria]

On 19-Sep-15 19:48, Bruce Tonkin wrote:
>>>  Except that the Board disagrees with our proposal to extend access to the IRP to all materially affected parties.
> Where do you get that impression from our submission?
>> The consequence of this would be that a domain registrant harmed by a new ICANN policy outside the scope of the Mission would have no recourse. 
>
> No the domain name registrant or a collection of registrants has the right to lodge and IRP.

Perhaps my confusion comes from page 24 of the Comments Matrix that
includes:

"There need to be clear lines to keep the IRP separate from operational
matters."

So the question comes down to understand whether most of the registrant
needs for redress come from operational matters.

As I understand the need from registrants, both commercial and
non-commercial, it is for accessible availability of a redress mechanism
for when their interests are affected by the operational actions of
ICANN.  They are not related to policy matters, except in so far as the
policies and their spirit is being ignored by operational practice.

>>>  They would have to hope that the policy would be challenged by ICANN constituent elements in the MEM, which is highly unlikely if the policy was developed and supported by the community.
> The MEM is in addition to the IRP not a replacement.

I had not properly understood this at the time i wrote.
I had understood that it was going to taking on some of the
responsibilities of the IRP.

>>>   ICANN needs to be kept within its limited Mission, not just kept to such excess as the SOs may tolerate. 
> Agreed.   
>
> Note though if the bottom-up policy development process is working properly - it shouldn't come to the point that the Board would be approving a policy that is outside of its mission - and thus requiring an IRP to over-turn.   I would hope that the SOs and ACs would identify that much earlier in the process.

This only works if you assume that the Board does not, on its own, make
policy when it decides it needs to. A decade's experience working with
the Board convinces me that the Board does feel free to make policy, or
to allow the staff to make policy implicitly by its actions, when it
'feels' that it is necessary.

Not all policy comes from the SOs, though of course it should.

thans
>
> Regards,
> Bruce Tonkin
>  
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>
>


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus