<div dir="ltr"><div>Dear Malcolm</div><div>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.</div><div>Regards</div><div>Kavouss </div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">2016-01-25 17:34 GMT+01:00 Kavouss Arasteh <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com" target="_blank">kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com</a>></span>:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div>Dear Malcolm</div><div>Tks</div><div>Moreover,<font size="3"><font face="Calibri">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.</font></font></div><div><font face="Calibri" size="3">Regards</font></div><span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><div><font face="Calibri" size="3">Kavouss </font></div></font></span></div><div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5"><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">2016-01-25 17:27 GMT+01:00 Malcolm Hutty <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:malcolm@linx.net" target="_blank">malcolm@linx.net</a>></span>:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;padding-left:1ex;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid"><span><br>
<br>
On 25/01/2016 16:19, Kavouss Arasteh wrote:<br>
> What I said was there should be a process to clearly distinguish between<br>
> those allegations which merits to be further pursued and those which<br>
> would not merit.<br>
><br>
> I do not think that the purpose of IRP is that every day tens of<br>
> allegations based on just a personal judgement of an individual without<br>
> any valid reasons and without any foundation invoke IRP,unless we<br>
> create occupation of the panelist and those will get those position<br>
> .This would give rise to misuse of the IRP.<br>
<br>
</span>I quite agree. We agreed from a very early stage, I believe, that the<br>
IRP would be empowered to dismiss expeditiously any frivioulous or<br>
vexatious claims or those without any reasonable prospect of success,<br>
before the review is fully engaged. Nobody wants or expects the IRP to<br>
be holding its intense reviews on poorly founded claims.<br>
<br>
Those that have been through the IRP process before will tell you that<br>
it is a very serious and involved process, not to mention an expensive<br>
one, so I do not think we will face the problem you describe.<br>
Nonetheless, the IRP will be empowered to deal with it, whenever misuse<br>
appears.<br>
<div><div><br>
<br>
--<br>
Malcolm Hutty | tel: <a href="tel:%2B44%2020%207645%203523" target="_blank" value="+442076453523">+44 20 7645 3523</a><br>
Head of Public Affairs | Read the LINX Public Affairs blog<br>
London Internet Exchange | <a href="http://publicaffairs.linx.net/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">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>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div>