On 20/09/2015 00:48, Bruce Tonkin wrote:
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."
No, 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 order to be materially affected, the person must suffer injury or harm that is directly and causally connected to the Board's alleged violation of the Bylaws or the Articles of Incorporation, and not as a result of third parties acting in line with the Board's action." That effectively excludes non-contracted parties, who experience ICANN policies "as a result of third parties acting in line with the Board's action" i.e. when ICANN policy is applied to them by Registries. For the IRP to be meaningful to domain registrants, "materially affected" must include materially affected by an ICANN policy.
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."
If the Board is willing to remove the offending qualification above, then I am glad. 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 21-27 St Thomas Street, London SE1 9RY Company Registered in England No. 3137929 Trinity Court, Trinity Street, Peterborough PE1 1DA