[IOT] IRP IoT message post-ICANN57

[Malcolm Hutty]

On 21/11/2016 23:10, Burr, Becky wrote:
> Not married to specific words - happy to work with other who want to
> clarify.

Great.

> But we can¹t hold ICANN accountable for a registry¹s or registrar¹s
> implementation of a policy that is not mandated by ICANN.

Agreed.

On the other hand, if a Registry or Registrar is only acting as they do
because they are obligated to do so by ICANN, we can hold ICANN
accountable for imposing that obligation. If the requirement is found to
be ultra vires ICANN's mission, it should be withdrawn.

As to timing, Registry's and Registrars will become aware of this
quickly, and will therefore have to exercise their challenge promptly or
forfeit it. A registrant will have an independent right to challenge
such a policy if they are themselves harmed by it, and the clock on the
registrant's opportunity to challenge it should not run out one year
from when ICANN imposed the policy on the Registry/Registrar, but from
when the harm was suffered by the registrant.

If we are all agreed on the above, then we are indeed in the happy
position of merely needing to tweak the wording to make it less easy to
be misread.

Malcolm.

-- 
            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