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

[Phil Corwin]

Thanks Alan. Exactly!

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: Alan Greenberg [mailto:alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca] 
Sent: Friday, September 18, 2015 5:21 PM
To: Phil Corwin; Bruce Tonkin; accountability-cross-community at icann.org
Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Your public comment re replacement of IANA provider

Let me re-phrase that.

I appreciate that the Board is suggesting that costs of using the MEM to enforce fundamental Bylaws will be covered by ICANN. Is it also the intent of the proposal submitted by the Board that IRP costs incurred by AC/SOs enforcing regular Bylaws by covered by ICANN?

Alan

At 18/09/2015 12:49 PM, Phil Corwin wrote:
>Can we please confine questions at this time to understanding? 
>Proposing starts to look like negotiating.
>
>Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone.
>
>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: Alan Greenberg
>Sent: Friday, September 18, 2015 11:52 AM
>To: Bruce Tonkin; accountability-cross-community at icann.org
>Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Your public comment re replacement of IANA 
>provider
>
>
>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
>
>_______________________________________________
>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.


-----
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.