[CCWG-ACCT] On IRP subgroup summary being presented at Johannesburg

Sivasubramanian M isolatedn at gmail.com
Sun Jun 25 09:55:22 UTC 2017

Dear Malcolm

Thank you for explaining the context. But I was actually trying to take
this reference to mission and bylaws somewhat beyond the immediate context.
ICANN's mission at a Global entity operating in Global Public Interest
ought not to be straight-jacketed. If limited, ICANN would be severely
restrained from doing what it takes to care for the DNS. Section 4.3 needs
an amendment, even if it is late into the work stream to make this
suggestion, as IRP ought not to be restrained by this limited view of
ICANN's mission. The task before the IRP is to examine if ICANN CONTRAVENED
its bylaws and not if it EXCEEDED its mission.

Sivasubramanian M

On Sun, Jun 25, 2017 at 9:46 AM, Malcolm Hutty <malcolm at linx.net> wrote:

> On 25/06/2017 08:26, Sivasubramanian M wrote:
> > Hello
> >
> > Unless there are unspoken and unseen merits, I have some concerns on
> > some aspects of the summary:
> >
> > 1.  The idea of constraining ICANN to its bylaws figures very
> > prominently in the summary, defined as one of the pillars, not really a
> > supportive pillar, but sort of a not so well thought of negative
> > command, " Don't allow ICANN to exceed its mission"
> David was attempting to summarise a very long and extremely complex
> instrument, which was negotiated in detail as part of WS1/transition
> negotiations.
> I believe David may have been referring in the "pillars" to section 4.3
> (a) of the bylaws which sets out the "purposes of the IRP".
> This says, in part,
> "The IRP is intended to hear and resolve Disputes for the following
> purposes ("Purposes of the IRP"):
> (i) Ensure that ICANN does not exceed the scope of its Mission and
> otherwise complies with its Articles of Incorporation and Bylaws.
> [....continues]"
> Moreover, we need to remember that the IRP is only available under
> specific circumstances. Essentially (and this may be a slight
> oversimplification), to use the IRP you have to be making a claim that
> ICANN breached its own bylaws, not merely that you would have preferred
> it acted differently. The extent of the Mission (which is broad, but
> clearly limited) and the instruction to act only within the scope of
> that Mission, are both set out in the bylaws. So the above extract
> should be understood in that context.
> Does that provide sufficient context to David's remarks?
> --
>             Malcolm Hutty | tel: +44 20 7645 3523
>    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
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

Sivasubramanian M <https://www.facebook.com/sivasubramanian.muthusamy>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20170625/e7557d9a/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list