[CCWG-ACCT] Your public comment re replacement of IANA provider

[Thomas Rickert]

I also read this as being limited to violations of Fundamental Bylaws. A point worth clarifying, which is why I am moving Bruce from "cc" to "to". 

Best,
Thomas

---
rickert.net


> Am 17.09.2015 um 21:53 schrieb Phil Corwin <psc at vlaw-dc.com>:
> 
> You are correct on that Alan. The Memo states explicitly that the MEM is only available to challenge alleged violations of the Fundamental Bylaws. The overall material makes clear that other Bylaws and the entire AOI would remain subject to the existing IRP.
> 
> I believe that I pointed out that very significant difference in scope in earlier emails on this list.
> 
> Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal
> Virtualaw LLC
> 1155 F Street, NW
> Suite 1050
> Washington, DC 20004
> 202-559-8597/Direct
> 202-559-8750/Fax
> 202-255-6172/cell
> 
> Twitter: @VlawDC
>  
> "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg
> Sent: Thursday, September 17, 2015 11:30 AM
> To: Bruce Tonkin; accountability-cross-community at icann.org
> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Your public comment re replacement of IANA provider
> 
> Bruce,
> 
> The CCWG Draft Proposal provides the IRP to allow the community to ensure that ICANN is following its Bylaws. In the body of the Board comments, it says that the Board is proposing the MEM to allow the community ensure that ICANN is complying with its Articles of Incorporation and Bylaws. However, in the "Memo on Proposed Approach for Community Enforceability", it says that arbitration may be used only for violation of Fundamental Bylaws.
> 
> Being able to seek arbitration over violations of AoI and all bylaws is VERY different from just being able to enforce the Fundamental Bylaws.
> 
> Am I reading this incorrectly? If not, can you please elaborate?
> 
> Alan
> 
> 
> 
> At 17/09/2015 05:13 AM, Bruce Tonkin wrote:
> 
>> .....
>> 
>> The MEM proposal allows the community to ensure the Board is following 
>> the bylaws, and that the decision of an independent panel becomes 
>> binding.
>> 
>> .....
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
> 
> -----
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 2015.0.6081 / Virus Database: 4401/10465 - Release Date: 08/19/15 Internal Virus Database is out of date.
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20150917/ef68e1c8/attachment.html>