[CCWG-ACCT] Your public comment re replacement of IANA provider

[Bruce Tonkin]

Hello Malcolm,


>>  Except that the Board disagrees with our proposal to extend access to the IRP to all materially affected parties.

Where do you get that impression from our submission?

The current state of IRP is:

"Any person materially affected by a decision or action by the Board that he or she asserts is inconsistent with the Articles of Incorporation or Bylaws may submit a request for independent review of that decision or action."

In our submission the Board stated:

"The ICANN Board agrees that any person/group/entity materially affected by an alleged violation of ICANN's Bylaws or Articles of Incorporation should have the right to file a complaint under the IRP."


>>  The consequence of this would be that a domain registrant harmed by a new ICANN policy outside the scope of the Mission would have no recourse. 

No the domain name registrant or a collection of registrants has the right to lodge and IRP.

>>  They would have to hope that the policy would be challenged by ICANN constituent elements in the MEM, which is highly unlikely if the policy was developed and supported by the community.

The MEM is in addition to the IRP not a replacement.


>>   ICANN needs to be kept within its limited Mission, not just kept to such excess as the SOs may tolerate. 

Agreed.   

Note though if the bottom-up policy development process is working properly - it shouldn't come to the point that the Board would be approving a policy that is outside of its mission - and thus requiring an IRP to over-turn.   I would hope that the SOs and ACs would identify that much earlier in the process.

Regards,
Bruce Tonkin