[discuss] [IANAxfer] [ccnso-igrg] Two accountability questions - help pls- Workshop 23 - ICANN accountability

[Adebunmi AKINBO]

A good way to reconcile those two requirements is to have an "independent
judiciary" with the authority to enforce binding, constitutional
limitations on what the policy process can do. This appeals process could
be used to challenge ultra vires policies, to challenge major process
failures, or to challenge implementations that do not reflect agreed
policies. All of these challenges should take place BEFORE anything hits
the IANA, of course. If policy (ICANN) and IANA are integrated in the same
organization, it becomes harder to enforce that kind of accountability,

/Miller.
How strong is the IRP with ICDR?
What does the future portend?
What needs to be altered or included in its evolution?


-Akinbo.

On Fri, Sep 12, 2014 at 3:04 PM, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:

>
>
>
>
> *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.
>
> _______________________________________________
> discuss mailing list
> discuss at 1net.org
> http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://1net-mail.1net.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20140917/c11b8bca/attachment.html>