<div dir="ltr"><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px"><font color="#38761d">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, </font></span><br><div><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px"><font color="#38761d"><br></font></span></div><div><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px"><font color="#000000">/Miller.</font></span></div><div><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px"><font color="#000000">How strong is the IRP with ICDR?</font></span></div><div><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px"><font color="#000000">What does the future portend?</font></span></div><div><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px"><font color="#000000">What needs to be altered or included in its evolution?</font></span></div><div><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px"><font color="#38761d"><br></font></span></div><div><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px"><font color="#38761d"><br></font></span></div><div><font color="#38761d" face="arial, sans-serif">-Akinbo.</font></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Sep 12, 2014 at 3:04 PM, Milton L Mueller <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:mueller@syr.edu" target="_blank">mueller@syr.edu</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<div style="border:none;border-left:solid blue 1.5pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 4.0pt">
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #b5c4df 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif""> Alejandro Pisanty [mailto:<a href="mailto:apisanty@gmail.com" target="_blank">apisanty@gmail.com</a>]
<br>
<br>
</span><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div><span class="">
<p class="MsoNormal">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?<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
</span><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">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. <u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p><u></u><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"><span>1)<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"">
</span></span></span><u></u><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">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.
<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p><u></u><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"><span>2)<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"">
</span></span></span><u></u><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">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.
<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p><u></u><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"><span>3)<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"">
</span></span></span><u></u><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">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.
<u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<br>_______________________________________________<br>
discuss mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:discuss@1net.org">discuss@1net.org</a><br>
<a href="http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss" target="_blank">http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss</a><br></blockquote></div><br></div></div>