[WP2] IRP Checklist

[Izumi Okutani]

Malcolm,


> Would you want an RIR to be able to initiate an IRP so as to require
> ICANN to desist? Or are you satisfied that RIRs already have sufficient
> enforceable alternative accountability mechanisms to correct any such
> scenario, and so are happy to be excluded from using the IRP even in
> such a scenario?

It's the latter.

> If the latter, we can use a broad exception to exclude any disputes
> related to Internet number resources. 

Indeed - this is the reason for the broad language.
Thanks for making sure about the intention.


Izumi

On 2015/07/27 21:17, Malcolm Hutty wrote:
> 
> On 27/07/2015 12:42, Izumi Okutani wrote:
>> It's not within the list of questions but I'd like to make the text suggestion below.
>> This is a follow up to my comment in Paris to keep the numbers community related matters out of scope.
>>
>> 1.	Scope of Authority
>> The role of the Independent Review Process (IRP) will be to:
>> - Determine whether ICANN has acted (or has failed to act) in violation of its Bylaws; and
>> - Hearing claims involving rights of the Sole Member under the Bylaws (subject to voting thresholds)
>>
>> [Add]
>> - Disputes related to Internet number resources are out of scope of the IRP.
> 
> Izumi,
> 
> A question for clarification, because we will need to get the wording
> right on this.
> 
> Allocation and assignment of Internet number resources is, of course,
> handled by RIRs and out of scope for ICANN, and so disputes about such
> matters are consequently out of scope for the IRP. I don't think there
> can be any doubt that this is our intent, and our language must reflect
> that clearly.
> 
> However, one point of uncertainty does present itself.
> 
> Consider a scenario where ICANN sought to exceed its own mandate in a
> manner that encroached on the responsibility of the RIRs for Internet
> number resources, for example by purporting to develop regional IP
> address allocation and assignment policy.
> 
> Would you want an RIR to be able to initiate an IRP so as to require
> ICANN to desist? Or are you satisfied that RIRs already have sufficient
> enforceable alternative accountability mechanisms to correct any such
> scenario, and so are happy to be excluded from using the IRP even in
> such a scenario?
> 
> If the latter, we can use a broad exception to exclude any disputes
> related to Internet number resources. If the former, we will need to
> choose our language very carefully indeed.
> 
> Malcolm.
> 
> P.S. I say "RIR" for simplicity; but assume I mean to include NIRs where
> and to the extent appropriate.
>