[CCWG-ACCT] Board comments now in

[Bruce Tonkin]

Hello David,

>>  But why would we want another process in addition to the IRP?  That seems terribly overcomplicated, to me - and, in a kind of divide-and-conquer mode, will weaken both the IRP and the new, additional arbitration panel.  This task the new MEM arbitration board is being asked to undertake is precisely the one for which the IRP is being constituted  - to decide whether the Board has overstepped the limits in the Bylaws.  Having 2 separate processes for that one task strikes me as a terrible idea.    

Yes - I am beginning to think it has just created confusion.   The original intent was to make it clear how the community could enforce the outcomes of binding arbitration, without having to change the corporate structure towards a single membership model.

For example - I would see it as the same standing panel of panellists for both the IRP and MEM.

The idea of splitting out the MEM was simply that you may have a different set of rules and thresholds for how to kick off the process for a community led proceeding.   For example maybe the community doesn't need to show material harm to commence a proceeding  - whereas an individual company does.

>> If the IRP process needs "tailoring" for community challenges, it should be in allowing any individual SO or AC to bring a challenge before the IRP.  

The Board's submission doesn't change that ability.

>>  This is in the current CCWG Proposal; the MEM proposal does away with this, by, as you put it allowing "multiple SOs and ACs to challenge Board decisions" -

No - the MEM doesn't "do away"  with the IRP for individual SOs and ACs.   An individual SO and AC could still initiate an IRP.

The MEM was intended to be in addition to the IRP and to clearly show how the community could enforce a binding arbitration, as a community rather than as a single member.

>>  That's not only a significant departure from the CCWG proposal

Actually it was an attempt to match the characteristics of the single member model.

In the CCWG proposal the Sole Member has standing to bring claims involving its rights under the Articles and Bylaws.    The MEM was really trying to replace the single member concept - ie having the ability of the community to  bring a claim relating to the articles and bylaws, and having the ability to enforce the outcome of that claim.    

The fundamental reason for creating the MEM was to show that the community could enforce the binding arbitration from an "independent" review panel without having to change the corporate structure to a single member model.    This was split out into a separate mechanism to be presented as an alternative to the single member model.    However personally I agree it could be merged into the IRP process if that makes it clearer.


>>    if the GNSO thinks that the Board has overstepped its bounds, why shouldn't it be able to get a hearing on that question (at the IRP)?  

Yes - I prefer the simplicity of that approach too.

Regards,
Bruce Tonkin