[CCWG-ACCT] Lawyers' High Level Review: Annexes 1, 8, 9, 10, 11

[Paul Rosenzweig]

Of course we should Kavous …

 

Paul Rosenzweig

 <mailto:paul.rosenzweigesq at redbranchconsulting.com> paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com 

O: +1 (202) 547-0660

M: +1 (202) 329-9650

VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739

Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066

 <http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=19&Itemid=9> Link to my PGP Key

 <http://www.rsaconference.com/events/us16?utm_source=signature&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=speakers-us2016> 

 

From: Kavouss Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com] 
Sent: Monday, January 25, 2016 11:41 AM
To: Malcolm Hutty <malcolm at linx.net>
Cc: Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com>; Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com>; ICANN <ICANN at adlercolvin.com>; Thomas Rickert <thomas at rickert.net>; accountability-cross-community at icann.org; acct-staff at icann.org; Sidley ICANN CCWG <sidleyicannccwg at sidley.com>; Greeley, Amy E. <AGreeley at sidley.com>; Grapsas, Rebecca <rebecca.grapsas at sidley.com>
Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Lawyers' High Level Review: Annexes 1, 8, 9, 10, 11

 

Dear Malcolm

Once again thanks for the explanations .I hope Paul is  now convinced that we should comply with what we have envisaged  to immediately dismiss any Feriviouls, Vexatious or Unfounded allégations( WITHOUT REASONABLE PROSPECT ) are made.

Regards

Kavouss 

 

2016-01-25 17:34 GMT+01:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com <mailto:kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com> >:

Dear Malcolm

Tks

Moreover,a slew of IRP challenges that have little actual merit from a legal perspective, placing the IRP panel (which may be comprised of persons without significant public policy   understanding) in a position of arbitrating a wide range of issues that may be driven by divergent  interests that have little relevance to the subject.

Regards

Kavouss 

 

2016-01-25 17:27 GMT+01:00 Malcolm Hutty <malcolm at linx.net <mailto:malcolm at linx.net> >:



On 25/01/2016 16:19, Kavouss Arasteh wrote:
> What I said was there should be a process to clearly distinguish between
> those allegations which merits to be further pursued and those which
> would not merit.
>
> I do not think that the purpose of IRP is that every day tens of
> allegations based on just a  personal judgement of an individual without
> any valid reasons and without any foundation  invoke IRP,unless we
> create occupation of the panelist and those will get those position
> .This would give rise to misuse of the IRP.

I quite agree. We agreed from a very early stage, I believe, that the
IRP would be empowered to dismiss expeditiously any frivioulous or
vexatious claims or those without any reasonable prospect of success,
before the review is fully engaged. Nobody wants or expects the IRP to
be holding its intense reviews on poorly founded claims.

Those that have been through the IRP process before will tell you that
it is a very serious and involved process, not to mention an expensive
one, so I do not think we will face the problem you describe.
Nonetheless, the IRP will be empowered to deal with it, whenever misuse
appears.



--
            Malcolm Hutty | tel: +44 20 7645 3523 <tel:%2B44%2020%207645%203523> 
   Head of Public Affairs | Read the LINX Public Affairs blog
 London Internet Exchange | http://publicaffairs.linx.net/

                 London Internet Exchange Ltd
       Monument Place, 24 Monument Street, London EC3R 8AJ

         Company Registered in England No. 3137929
       Trinity Court, Trinity Street, Peterborough PE1 1DA



 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20160125/aaafecff/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 2849 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20160125/aaafecff/image001.png>