[IOT] Another comment treatment (Challenging/Rewriting Consensus Policy)
Malcolm Hutty
malcolm at linx.net
Tue May 9 23:35:30 UTC 2017
On 09/05/2017 19:18, McAuley, David via IOT wrote:
>
> *My recommendations (as participant, not as lead):*
>
>
>
> I recommend that we create a mandatory right of intervention for the SO
> whose policy is under challenge. And I recommend that we treat it along
> the lines I recommended for other Joinder issues, specifically as follows:
>
>
>
> · That such SO receive notice from a claimant of the full Notice
> of IRP and Request for IRP (including copies of all related, filed
> documents) contemporaneously with the claimant serving those documents
> on ICANN; and
>
>
>
> · That such SO have a right to intervene in the IRP. How that
> right shall be exercised shall be up to the PROCEDURES OFFICER, who may
> allow such intervention through granting IRP-party status or by allowing
> such SO to file amicus brief(s), as the PROCEDURES OFFICER determines in
> his/her discretion. No interim relief or settlement of the IRP can be
> made without allowing those given amicus status a chance to file an
> amicus brief on the requested relief or terms of settlement.
>
>
>
> · I therefore *suggest we stop short* of providing such notice
> to SGs, WG Chairs and community members, and “those who helped create
> the consensus policy and those whose interests are represented
> in/affected by it.”
>
>
>
> · I do not see the need to limit what a panel can do with
> respect to challenges to consensus policy inasmuch as bylaw section
> 4.3(o) seems well suited to address the matter.
Sounds good to me.
--
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 IOT
mailing list