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

Tue Sep 22 02:02:05 UTC 2015

Thanks Becky.  I am also concerned about this aspect.  I think it is particularly relevant when evaluating availability of injunctive relief pending arbitration proceedings proposed by the MEM.
Anne

[cid:image001.gif at 01D0F49F.FDECB3F0]

Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel

Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP

One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611

(T) 520.629.4428 | (F) 520.879.4725

AAikman at lrrlaw.com<mailto:AAikman at lrrlaw.com> | www.LRRLaw.com<http://www.lrrlaw.com/>

From: accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Burr, Becky
Sent: Friday, September 18, 2015 7:57 AM
To: Seun Ojedeji; Bruce Tonkin
Cc: accountability-cross-community at icann.org
Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Your public comment re replacement of IANA provider

Furthermore, and more worrisome to me is what the MEM does to the fundamental concept of an independent judiciary.

J. Beckwith Burr
Neustar, Inc. / Deputy General Counsel and Chief Privacy Officer
1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20006
Office: + 1.202.533.2932  Mobile:  +1.202.352.6367  / becky.burr at neustar.biz<mailto:becky.burr at neustar.biz> / www.neustar.biz<http://www.neustar.biz>

From: Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com<mailto:seun.ojedeji at gmail.com>>
Date: Friday, September 18, 2015 at 7:23 AM
To: Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin at melbourneit.com.au<mailto:Bruce.Tonkin at melbourneit.com.au>>
Cc: Accountability Community <accountability-cross-community at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org>>
Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Your public comment re replacement of IANA provider

On Fri, Sep 18, 2015 at 10:20 AM, Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin at melbourneit.com.au<mailto:Bruce.Tonkin at melbourneit.com.au>> wrote:

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.

Hello Bruce,
Although I recognise that there could be a situation where the IRP may indeed have made wrong judgement of an issue which the MEM may then conclude in support of ICANN's position not to follow IRP's action. Other than that, considering that the MEM is expected to be generally looking through the same processes/documents that the IRP may have looked into, I don't seem to see the huge advantage that the MEM will bring especially if board did not follow outcome of IRP that eventually receives MEM blessings as well. As it would be would seem like going round in circle.

However there will be a major difference/advantage if you could confirm whether the MEM outcome will be binding/final on ICANN board. Is that the case?

Regards

Regards,
Bruce Tonkin

_______________________________________________
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=AwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=s28TEp9z6_r1hPE3ZiSxezIcPLwyzNB96XzV3g69qJw&s=tT7IgukgeCC6rhExFd-pJAUUwYPaFz8r8XCS08-YBH0&e=>

--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Seun Ojedeji,
Federal University Oye-Ekiti
web:      http://www.fuoye.edu.ng<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.fuoye.edu.ng&d=AwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=s28TEp9z6_r1hPE3ZiSxezIcPLwyzNB96XzV3g69qJw&s=EcUX7nplG7Hk22vJbYtgoL3AcRyX1-K-o4tdKEOPang&e=>
Mobile: +2348035233535
alt email:seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng<mailto:seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng>
Bringing another down does not take you up - think about your action!

________________________________

This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20150922/73e00f79/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 3765 bytes
Desc: image001.gif
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20150922/73e00f79/image001.gif>