<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<!-- Template generated by Exclaimer Mail Disclaimers on 12:23:33 Monday, 11 January 2016 --><style type="text/css">P.8e96fa11-c06d-4965-8817-8ff46765e27f {
MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt
}
LI.8e96fa11-c06d-4965-8817-8ff46765e27f {
MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt
}
DIV.8e96fa11-c06d-4965-8817-8ff46765e27f {
MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt
}
TABLE.8e96fa11-c06d-4965-8817-8ff46765e27fTable {
MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt
}
DIV.Section1 {
page: Section1
}
</style>
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 14 (filtered medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple">
<p class="8e96fa11-c06d-4965-8817-8ff46765e27f"></p>
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Malcolm raises a point that I am also concerned about.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">I’ve been puzzled why DIDP appeals would be part of the IRP. I support including DIDP in an appeals process, but we are very much against restricting it to
the IRP engagement, escalation, and enforcement staircase because that process is dependent on the Empowered Community. DIDP appeals need to be accessible to everyone, not just the SOACs, and appeals should not require SOAC approval at any threshold.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">What about moving DIDP appeals to the request for reconsideration process? Is there some reason that I am not seeing?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Best,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Brett
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div></div>
</div>
<p></p>
<p class="8e96fa11-c06d-4965-8817-8ff46765e27f"></p>
<hr align="left" color="#58595b" width="200">
<span style="font-size:x-small; color: #004B8D; font-weight: bold; ">Brett</span><span style="font-size:x-small; color: #004B8D; font-weight: bold; "></span>
<span style="font-size:x-small; color: #004B8D; font-weight: bold; ">Schaefer</span><span style="font-size:x-small; color: #58595B; font-weight: normal; font-style: italic; "><br>
Jay Kingham Senior Research Fellow in International Regulatory Affairs</span><span style="font-size:x-small; color: #58595B; font-weight: normal; font-style: italic; "></span><span style="font-size:x-small; color: #58595B; font-weight: normal; font-style: italic; "><br>
Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom Davis Institute for National Security and Foreign Policy</span><br>
<font color="#58595b" size="2">The Heritage Foundation<br>
214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE<br>
Washington, DC 20002</font><span style="font-size:x-small; color: #58595B; "><br>
202-608-6097</span><br>
<font color="#004b8d" size="2"><a style="COLOR: #004b8d; TEXT-DECORATION: none" href="http://heritage.org/">heritage.org</a><br>
<span style="font-size:x-small; "></span><span style="font-size:x-small; "></span>
<p></p>
</font>
<p></p>
<div class="WordSection1">
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif""> accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Malcolm Hutty<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Monday, January 11, 2016 11:57 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> Accountability Cross Community<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [CCWG-ACCT] DOCUMENT - Rec 7 – Scope of IRP (first reading)<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
<br>
On 11/01/2016 15:57, Alice Jansen wrote:<br>
> _Sent on behalf of CCWG-ACCT Co-Chairs_<br>
> <br>
> In preparation for your R/ecommendation 7 – Scope of IRP (first<br>
> reading)/ discussion scheduled for your call #76 - Tuesday, 12 January<br>
> 2016 (06:00 – 09:00 UTC) - please find attached the material to review. <br>
> Please use this email thread to circulate any comments you may have in<br>
> advance of the call.<br>
> <br>
> Thank you<br>
> <br>
> Mathieu, Thomas, León<br>
<br>
I will only be able to attend part of the call, as I will be in transit,<br>
and by audio-only; not Adobe chat.<br>
<br>
I am therefore submitting some observations in advance.<br>
<br>
* The CWG and IAB requests seem appropriate, although in the CWG's case<br>
implementation may need careful wording, and I have no suggestions for<br>
how to do that.<br>
<br>
* The Golden Rule of the IRP is that it exists to review whether ICANN<br>
has acted inconsistently with its Bylaws. That's all.<br>
- This means the scope of the IRP is narrow: you cannot succeed in an<br>
appeal to it merely because you dislike what ICANN has done. ICANN is,<br>
and must remain, free to do all sorts of unwise and misguided things,<br>
without those decisions being reviewed by the IRP. To say otherwise<br>
would be to move the decision-making from the bottom-up community, where<br>
it should be, to the rule of lawyers.<br>
<br>
- At the same time, this means the scope of the IRP must not be reduced<br>
further. If ICANN has acted inconsistently with the Bylaws, it must be<br>
possible to hold it to account in the IRP. It does not matter that the<br>
action is labelled "operational" or "implementation" or "not a Board<br>
action". Anything that ICANN the corporation has done must be compatible<br>
with the Bylaws, and if it is not, an IRP must be a possibility.<br>
<br>
* Apply this "Golden Rule", I do not agree with a suggestion that<br>
anything can be excluded from the scope of the IRP merely by declaring<br>
it to be "operational", not if that term is so flexible as to extend<br>
beyond technical operations into such matters as the Board's decision of<br>
what documents to disclose to IRP complainants.<br>
<br>
- Concerning expert panels, the IRP is not intended to be a route to<br>
appeal expert decisions on the grounds that they made the wrong policy<br>
decision. The only grounds from an IRP case is that ICANN has acted<br>
inconsistently with its bylaws. So the Board's concern here may rest on<br>
a misunderstanding we can correct. However, substantive decisions are<br>
not wholly excluded from IRP review: it should be possible to contest an<br>
expert panel decision for reasons of bias (as in, self-interest), for<br>
example, or for discrimination, or conflict with one of the other Core<br>
Values and Fundamental Commitments. But if the expert panel has its own<br>
appeals process, then that process must be followed, and IRP review is<br>
only invocable if that process is not followed, or if it is flawed in a<br>
manner that makes the process design itself inconsistent with the Bylaws.<br>
<br>
- Concerning DIDP: I think it would be very hard to show that a failure<br>
to disclose a document was inconsistent with the bylaws, unless that<br>
disclosure was sought for the purposes of conducting an IRP case itself.<br>
But the notion that ICANN should immunised against the possibility of<br>
review in this area I consider to be quite unreasonable.<br>
For documents sought for the IRP process itself, I would hope that the<br>
IRP and/or the community will gradually evolve rules of procedure<br>
explaining what documents must be disclosed in such cases. I would<br>
certainly want the IRP to have charge of review over whether such rules<br>
have been followed.<br>
<br>
* More generally, I think we need to distinguish between the concepts of<br>
that which is immune to IRP review, and that which is unlikely to<br>
succeed in an IRP review.<br>
- Some things (such as those above) might be unlikely to succeed except<br>
in the case of egregiously unreasonable behaviour by ICANN (because<br>
otherwise a complainant could not show that ICANN had acted<br>
inconsistently with the Bylaws), but the possibility of review should<br>
still be there, just in case.<br>
- That is distinct from the IRP reviewing protocols or numbers<br>
decisions; these are immune to IRP review because the change-control<br>
authority does not lie with ICANN, and the IRP exists only to review<br>
ICANN, not the IETF and the RIRs.<br>
<br>
* Regarding the comments on paragraph 38. Noted. However I don't see<br>
these future rules of procedure as something the CCWG produces now (or<br>
before transition), but as something that continues later. Hence the<br>
reference to the assistance of the Standing Panel, and to "updated in<br>
the light of further experience". So I don't think we need to act on<br>
these comments now.<br>
<br>
Kind Regards,<br>
<br>
Malcolm.<br>
<br>
-- <br>
Malcolm Hutty | tel: +44 20 7645 3523<br>
Head of Public Affairs | Read the LINX Public Affairs blog<br>
London Internet Exchange | <a href="http://publicaffairs.linx.net/">
http://publicaffairs.linx.net/</a><br>
<br>
London Internet Exchange Ltd<br>
Monument Place, 24 Monument Street, London EC3R 8AJ<br>
<br>
Company Registered in England No. 3137929<br>
Trinity Court, Trinity Street, Peterborough PE1 1DA<br>
<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a><br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p></p>
</body>
</html>