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

Malcolm Hutty malcolm at linx.net
Mon Jan 25 16:27:15 UTC 2016

On 25/01/2016 16:19, Kavouss Arasteh wrote:
> What I said was there should be a process to clearly distinguish between
> those allegations which merits to be further pursued and those which
> would not merit.
> I do not think that the purpose of IRP is that every day tens of
> allegations based on just a  personal judgement of an individual without
> any valid reasons and without any foundation  invoke IRP,unless we
> create occupation of the panelist and those will get those position
> .This would give rise to misuse of the IRP.

I quite agree. We agreed from a very early stage, I believe, that the
IRP would be empowered to dismiss expeditiously any frivioulous or
vexatious claims or those without any reasonable prospect of success,
before the review is fully engaged. Nobody wants or expects the IRP to
be holding its intense reviews on poorly founded claims.

Those that have been through the IRP process before will tell you that
it is a very serious and involved process, not to mention an expensive
one, so I do not think we will face the problem you describe.
Nonetheless, the IRP will be empowered to deal with it, whenever misuse

            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 Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list