[CCWG-ACCT] Lawyers' High Level Review: Annexes 1, 8, 9, 10, 11

Kavouss Arasteh kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com
Mon Jan 25 14:45:14 UTC 2016

Dear All,
Perhaps people totally forgotten that NO IRP SHALL BE INVOKED BY THE COMMUNITY. 
This has been discussed  and confirmed .pls refer ti WP 2 and CCWG previous NOTES and REPORTS  

Sent from my iPhone

> On 25 Jan 2016, at 10:57, Malcolm Hutty <malcolm at linx.net> wrote:
>> On 24/01/2016 21:32, Greg Shatan wrote:
>> Paul,
>> I was halfway through writing an email that said exactly that.  
>> This may be due to the lawyers re-interpreting "duly taken into account"
>> in a way that I don't agree with and which I think is incorrect.
> I also agree that this would be a substantial change.
> To support that, I would ask you to consider the follow, not unlikely,
> scenario.
> The GAC has advised the Board to do something, but what it has advised
> is not entirely clearly, and there is certainly ambiguity as to how it
> might be implemented. The Board has then done something. A materially
> affected party, unhappy with the Board's action and preferring an
> alternative that would take a more extreme view of the GAC advice,
> challenges the action in the IRP. The Board takes the view that it has
> taken the GAC's advice into account and that what it has done is
> reasonably consistent with the GAC advice; the complainant argues that
> the action was not consistent with it.
> If the IRP finds that factually the complainant is correct to allege
> that the Board's action was not consisistent with the GAC advice, what
> is the consequence of that? It seems to vary according to which standard
> we choose:
> - If the current standard applies, that the Board "duly take into
> account" GAC advice, the IRP may still find that the Board did do that:
> since they noted the GAC's advice, considered it, and believed (albeit
> incorrectly) that what they were doing constituted a reasonably
> implementation of it, it is hard to say they did not meet this standard.
> The IRP will however order the Board that to bring itself back into
> compliance with the bylaws it must notify the GAC that it has acted
> inconsistently, and try to find a mutually acceptable solution. The
> action, however, may stand: a solution need not necessarily involve
> cancelling the action, but might be found through supplementing the
> action with another.
> - If Holly's standard applies, that the Board "must not act
> inconsistently" with GAC advice, then the mere finding that the Board
> has acted inconsistently invalidates that decision. The action must be
> quashed, if it is possible to do so; failure to do so would consistute
> perpetuating the bylaws breach.
> This is a material change, that may significantly affect the outcome.
> Personally, I do not believe this change is needed or desirable. For
> that reason, I respectfully disagree with accepting Holly's advice on
> this particular case.
> Kind Regards,
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> 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