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

[Alan Greenberg]

Thanks Bruce.  Are you proposing that ICANN cover any IRP costs if it 
is used by AC/SOs?

Alan

At 18/09/2015 05:20 AM, Bruce Tonkin wrote:
>Hello Alan,
>
>
> >>  The CCWG Draft Proposal provides the IRP to allow the community 
> to ensure that ICANN is following its Bylaws.
>
>Yes the ICANN Board also agrees that the IRP still applies to all 
>bylaws.   It can be used by individuals, companies or groups to bring actions.
>
>
> >>  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.
>
>The MEM is fully funded and is brought by SOs and ACs, if there is a 
>breach of fundamental bylaws,   In the case of the MEM - in addition 
>to funding the cost of the standing panel, the ICANN also will pay 
>the legal advice fees for the MEM issue group.   Much like ICANN is 
>paying for the attorney fees for the CCWG today.
>
>The independent review process (IRP) is itself a fundamental 
>bylaw.   So the two become linked in that if the IRP is used to 
>decide whether the Board has followed the bylaws, and the board does 
>not follow the binding decision of the IRP panel (to the extent 
>permitted by law) - then this would be a breach of the fundamental 
>bylaw, and the MEM could be applied.
>
>Regards,
>Bruce Tonkin
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community