[CCWG-ACCT] Fwd: [Acct-Staff] Sidley and Adler Comments on Drafts for Legal Review: First set of 2

Malcolm Hutty malcolm at linx.net
Tue Jul 28 12:16:32 UTC 2015

In Section 5A (Community Mechanism) it now says:

"Under these arrangements the decisions and powers of the CMSM could be
enforced through the internal IRP process with the force of binding
arbitration and, if necessary, further backed through judicial proceedings."

This wording isn't very clear, in several respects.

1) Is it the intent that the single member would automatically have
standing before the IRP? If so, that needs to be reflected in Section 4

2) One of the key reasons for selecting the Sole Member model was this
it would have the power to require ICANN to enter into and use the IRP
process with the force of binding arbitration and, if necessary, that
that requirement would be further backed through judicial proceedings -
not only for disputes relating to the use by the Sole Member of its
power (as stated here), but also as the means of last recourse for
resolving other disputes.

It is important that this should be reflected in this text so that the
public, and indeed ICANN/ and NTIA, are all clear about our intent.

            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

More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list