[IOT] Joinder by SOs

Malcolm Hutty malcolm at linx.net
Thu Apr 27 22:29:53 UTC 2017

On tonight's call, David invited me to post to the list to memorialise a
point I made in relation to the issue of Joinder.

One public comment (I'm afraid I forgot whom it was) proposed that where
an IRP case is brought to challenge a Community Consensus Policy, the SO
whose policy it was should have an automatic right to join the case, to
defend their policy.

My comment was that while I appreciate the SOs interest in their policy,
I fear joining them as a full party this would be onerous and possibly
unwelcome. An IRP case will engender lots of preliminary back-and-forth
with which an SO is poorly equipped to engage. And an SO ought to be
able to make its point without taking on all the obligations of a party,
including potentially an obligation to cover ICANN's legal costs.

So I would like to suggest that rather than joining the SO as a full
party to the case, the commenter's concern might better be addressed by
giving the SO an right to be notified of any challenges to Community
Consensus Policies they have recommended, an automatic right to file an
amicus brief in response to such challenges, and that we place an
obligation upon the IRP Panel to take note of that amicus brief (without
conferring any duty of deference to it - the IRP must of course remain


            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

More information about the IOT mailing list