[CCWG-ACCT] Board comments on Board removal in the context of GAC advice

Kavouss Arasteh kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com
Wed Feb 17 11:54:58 UTC 2016

Dear All,
Variety of issued are put on the table from early warning to a Veto by government to dismissal of the Board and finally need or otherwise of IRP.
To many issues in one shot?
Difficult to analyse?

Sent from my iPhone

> On 17 Feb 2016, at 11:11, Malcolm Hutty <malcolm at linx.net> wrote:
>> On 17/02/2016 01:28, Bruce Tonkin wrote:
>> Our view is that past cases relating to disagreement on GAC advice
>> have been focussed on concerns that ICANN is exceeding its mission or
>> is not following its processes.
> What has happened in the past is not necessarily the boundary of
> everything that might foreseeably happen in the future.
> Consider the scenario of the following hypothetical GAC advice:
> "Where an Early Warning has been received, processing of the Application
> shall be suspended until such time as the Early Warning is withdrawn".
> Implementation of such a rule would give each and every government an
> independent veto on new gTLDs. This might be said to be transformative.
> I am sure it is not what the NTIA has in mind. Perhaps it might even be
> sufficient that the community might wish to insist it is not adopted.
> I cannot see that the IRP provides a route for preventing the Board from
> accepting and implementing such advice.
> If one community wished to propose dismissing the Board for vesting such
> a veto power in governments, should the GAC get to participate in that
> decision? I think the logic of Becky's compromise carve-out is that it
> should not.
> More generally, I cannot see why the community would ever wish to
> dismiss the Board having won an IRP case, unless it be because the Board
> disregarded or defied the IRP ruling. If the community won an IRP and it
> was accepted, it would have had sufficient remedy.
> Board dismissal exists to cover cases that are not susceptible to IRP
> determination, either because the rules are inadequate, or because the
> complaint is simply non-justiciable in character.
> -- 
>            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
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list