[CCWG-ACCT] Comparison of independent review processes

[Gregory, Holly]

Yes



Sent with Good (www.good.com)

________________________________
From: Mathieu Weill
Sent: Saturday, October 10, 2015 03:57:11 AM
To: Gregory, Holly
Cc: León Felipe Sánchez Ambía; Izumi Okutani; Samantha Eisner; ICANN-Adler; Thomas Rickert; accountability-cross-community at icann.org; ACCT-Staff; Sidley ICANN CCWG
Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Comparison of independent review processes

Hi Holly,

I believe this is just a follow up isn't it ? My understanding was that Izumi's question was already addressed in the various memos ?

Mathieu Weill
---------------
Depuis mon mobile, désolé pour le style

Le 10 oct. 2015 à 01:19, Gregory, Holly <holly.gregory at sidley.com<mailto:holly.gregory at sidley.com>> a écrit :

We will add it to the certified list of questions.



Sent with Good (www.good.com<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.good.com&d=CwMGaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=1-1w8mU_eFprE2Nn9QnYf01XIV88MOwkXwHYEbF2Y_8&m=Y3W1B8IcX1SY0EOvKJdcFN81Ji-urGH7SNUOHTAyVts&s=6vZR1ODKp5Az1MIxh5Ax1DFCnSjTjWgkVSMdUJidg_E&e=>)

________________________________
From: León Felipe Sánchez Ambía
Sent: Friday, October 09, 2015 05:53:46 PM
To: Izumi Okutani
Cc: Samantha Eisner; ICANN-Adler; Thomas Rickert; accountability-cross-community at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org>; ACCT-Staff; Sidley ICANN CCWG; Mathieu Weill
Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Comparison of independent review processes

Dear Holly, dear Rosemary,

I think this is a key question. Could you kindly provide an answer?

Saludos,


León

> El 09/10/2015, a las 5:02 p.m., Izumi Okutani <izumi at nic.ad.jp<mailto:izumi at nic.ad.jp>> escribió:
>
> Thanks Sam for this information.
>
> I also have a follow up question and would be interested to hear the CCWG lawyers' (Sidley Austin and Adler Colvin) view on this.
>
> Under the MEM proposed by ICANN, who exactly and on which basis has the
> right to commence proceedings in order to enforce the binding arbitration?
>
> Should SO/ACs be unincorporated associations? Should SO/ACs give power
> of attorney to their chairs or one of their member?
>
> I would appreciate some clarification on this matter.
>
>
> Thank you,
> Izumi
>
>> On 2015/10/09 4:28, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía wrote:
>> Thanks Sam. This is very useful information.
>>
>> It would be useful to know how this avoids going into the concerns raised by the Board on capture, complexity and uncertainty:
>>
>> Quote from Jones Day Memo
>>
>> "Specifically, under the Board’s Proposal, the decision could be enforced by an unincorporated association comprised of: (i) an individual participating SO/AC or some grouping of participating SOs/ACs; (ii) the members of multiple participating SOs/ACs; or (iii) chairs of multiple participating SOs/ACs. In the alternative, the individual (natural) people serving as chairs of the participating SOs/ACs could enforce the award in an individual capacity."
>>
>> It would be great if we could have more clarity on this I think.
>>
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>>
>> León
>>
>>> El 08/10/2015, a las 1:47 p.m., Samantha Eisner <Samantha.Eisner at icann.org<mailto:Samantha.Eisner at icann.org>> escribió:
>>>
>>> I am forwarding this on behalf of Jones Day, as they do not have sending rights to this list.
>>>
>>> Note from Jones Day:
>>>
>>> Dear CCWG,
>>>
>>> As Holly noted in her cover email, CCWG Counsel's "Comparison of Independent Review Processes" was provided to Jones Day in advance of it being circulated to the CCWG.  In the interests of transparency, please note that Jones Day did not provide line edits identifying the areas of disagreement with CCWG Counsel, but instead provided the attached memorandum for CCWG Counsel's consideration.  CCWG Counsel did not revise its Comparison document to reflect the thoughts set forth in the attached Jones Day memo.  Sidley/Adler understood that this memo would be shared with the CCWG after their Comparison document was circulated.
>>>
>>> From: <accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org> <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org>> on behalf of "Gregory, Holly" <holly.gregory at sidley.com<mailto:holly.gregory at sidley.com> <mailto:holly.gregory at sidley.com>>
>>> Date: Wednesday, October 7, 2015 at 10:24 PM
>>> To: Thomas Rickert <thomas at rickert.net<mailto:thomas at rickert.net> <mailto:thomas at rickert.net>>, Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill at afnic.fr<mailto:mathieu.weill at afnic.fr> <mailto:mathieu.weill at afnic.fr>>, León Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe at sanchez.mx<mailto:leonfelipe at sanchez.mx> <mailto:leonfelipe at sanchez.mx>>
>>> Cc: Sidley ICANN CCWG <sidleyicannccwg at sidley.com<mailto:sidleyicannccwg at sidley.com> <mailto:sidleyicannccwg at sidley.com>>, ACCT-Staff <acct-staff at icann.org<mailto:acct-staff at icann.org> <mailto:acct-staff at icann.org>>, ICANN-Adler <ICANN at adlercolvin.com<mailto:ICANN at adlercolvin.com> <mailto:ICANN at adlercolvin.com>>, "accountability-cross-community at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org> <mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org>" <accountability-cross-community at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org> <mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org>>
>>> Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] Comparison of independent review processes
>>>
>>> Dear CCWG Co-chairs, Members and Participants,  Attached please find a comparison of key characteristics of  (1) ICANN's current IRP, (2) the IRP under the CCWG 2nd Draft Proposal (in the context of the Community Mechanism as Sole Member Model), and (3) the IRP and MEM set forth in the Board Proposal as requested in L.A.
>>> We shared this with Jones Day and ICANN Legal in advance so that they could provide any corrections regarding our understanding of the IRP and MEM as set forth in the Board Proposal.
>>> Kind regards, Holly and Rosemary
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Sent with Good (<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__&d=CwMGaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=1-1w8mU_eFprE2Nn9QnYf01XIV88MOwkXwHYEbF2Y_8&m=Y3W1B8IcX1SY0EOvKJdcFN81Ji-urGH7SNUOHTAyVts&s=veG6UwVXjOLoQ63_kvhKgMZ6oDOptlBdod6qkRK0QnI&e=>www.good.com<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.good.com&d=CwMGaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=1-1w8mU_eFprE2Nn9QnYf01XIV88MOwkXwHYEbF2Y_8&m=Y3W1B8IcX1SY0EOvKJdcFN81Ji-urGH7SNUOHTAyVts&s=6vZR1ODKp5Az1MIxh5Ax1DFCnSjTjWgkVSMdUJidg_E&e=> <http://www.good.com/<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.good.com_&d=CwMGaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=1-1w8mU_eFprE2Nn9QnYf01XIV88MOwkXwHYEbF2Y_8&m=Y3W1B8IcX1SY0EOvKJdcFN81Ji-urGH7SNUOHTAyVts&s=AO7i1GNbuwAsd-tMvjCx5mcwrskWKtIgAyVh0Ivl4z0&e=>>)
>>>
>>> From: Grapsas, Rebecca
>>> Sent: Wednesday, October 07, 2015 11:45:50 PM
>>> To: Gregory, Holly
>>> Subject:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ****************************************************************************************************
>>> This e-mail is sent by a law firm and may contain information that is privileged or confidential.
>>> If you are not the intended recipient, please delete the e-mail and any attachments and notify us
>>> immediately.
>>>
>>> ****************************************************************************************************
>>> <Oct. 7, 2015 Memo re Enforceability of Binding Arbitration[1].pdf>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwMGaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=1-1w8mU_eFprE2Nn9QnYf01XIV88MOwkXwHYEbF2Y_8&m=Y3W1B8IcX1SY0EOvKJdcFN81Ji-urGH7SNUOHTAyVts&s=X3SAMQygMxspbJy6JUeF2QUmhkTBC86gkINvweP7pKw&e=>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20151010/bc534efe/attachment.html>