[discuss] [IANAxfer] [ccnso-igrg] Two accountability questions - help pls- Workshop 23 - ICANN accountability
Milton L Mueller
mueller at syr.edu
Fri Sep 12 14:04:15 UTC 2014
From: Alejandro Pisanty [mailto:apisanty at gmail.com]
You were part of one of the most successful (to the complainant) and expensive (for all involved except you) challenges ever. What specifically do you find lacking now?
Current IRP is lacking in several dimensions. 1) It is too expensive, 2) it is non-binding and 3) it is not tied to the kind of constitutional constraints on ICANN’s mission that I and many others would like to see.
1) The fact that the IRP was an option only for a multi-millionaire who could make a credible threat to take it into the US courts if he failed is something that needs to be addressed. I am not one of those who wants to encourage any sort of litigation, but the process needs to be more accessible.
2) Even though we won the .xxx IRP, ICANN’s board literally could have disregarded the decision if it wanted to. IMHO, the only reason it didn’t was that, as I said above, the .xxx proprietor had enough money and enough anger to drag ICANN into federal courts. If ICANN loses an IRP it should lose and reverse its decision, full stop.
3) We’d like limits on ICANN’s authority, we want to keep it out of content regulation (“world government”) or make domain names the leverage for dozens of other kinds of conduct regulation on the net. I think you agree with us on that. So ideally the IRP could be used to challenge and reverse policies that step outside of those boundaries.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the discuss