<p dir="ltr">Dear Co-Chairs,</p>
<p dir="ltr">Based on the mail forwarded by Samantha, I sense some communication issues among CCWG legal and Jones day. I think it will be good for Co-Chairs to follow this up in other to avoid such in future. I don't want to believe yet that the CCWG legal is not acting in a neutral manner in this process (since Jones day is considered not to be acting neutral by default)</p>
<p dir="ltr">As to your specific question Leon, I note that the approach proposed does not in any way turn SO/AC to member. I also note that 3 options where provided and it seem you only highlighted 1 of them.</p>
<p dir="ltr">For me, what we have been made to believe at CCWG is that enforceability is NOT possible with the board proposed approach and it will be good to answer that fundamental question before even considering complexity/capture.</p>
<p dir="ltr">Regards</p>
<p dir="ltr">Sent from my Asus Zenfone2<br>
Kindly excuse brevity and typos.</p>
<div class="gmail_quote">On 8 Oct 2015 20:28, "León Felipe Sánchez Ambía" <<a href="mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx">leonfelipe@sanchez.mx</a>> wrote:<br type="attribution"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div style="word-wrap:break-word">Thanks Sam. This is very useful information.<div><br></div><div>It would be useful to know how this avoids going into the concerns raised by the Board on capture, complexity and uncertainty:</div><div><br></div><div>Quote from Jones Day Memo</div><div><br></div><div><div style="margin:0px;font-size:11.5px;line-height:normal;font-family:'Times New Roman'">"Specifically, under the Board’s Proposal, the decision could be <b>enforced by an unincorporated association</b> comprised of: (i) <b>an individual participating SO/AC</b> or some grouping of participating SOs/ACs; (ii) the members of multiple participating SOs/ACs; or (iii) chairs of multiple participating SOs/ACs. In the alternative, the individual (natural) <b>people serving as chairs of the participating SOs/ACs could enforce the award in an individual capacity.</b>"</div><div><br></div><div>It would be great if we could have more clarity on this I think.</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>
<div>Best regards,</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>León</div>
</div>
<br><div><blockquote type="cite"><div>El 08/10/2015, a las 1:47 p.m., Samantha Eisner <<a href="mailto:Samantha.Eisner@icann.org" target="_blank">Samantha.Eisner@icann.org</a>> escribió:</div><br><div><div style="font-family:Helvetica;font-size:12px;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;font-weight:normal;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px"><font>I</font><font> am </font><font>forwarding this on </font><font face="Calibri">behalf</font><font> of Jones Day, as they do not have sending rights to this list. </font> </div><div style="font-family:Helvetica;font-size:12px;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;font-weight:normal;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px"><br></div><div style="font-family:Helvetica;font-size:12px;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;font-weight:normal;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px">Note from Jones Day:</div><div style="font-family:Helvetica;font-size:12px;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;font-weight:normal;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px"><br style="font-family:Calibri;font-size:inherit"><font size="2" face="sans-serif" style="font-size:14px;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">Dear CCWG,</font><font size="3" face="Calibri" style="font-size:inherit;font-family:Calibri"> </font><span style="font-family:Calibri;font-size:inherit"></span><font size="3" style="font-size:inherit;font-family:Calibri"><br></font><font size="3" face="Calibri" style="font-size:inherit;font-family:Calibri"><br>As Holly noted in her cover email, CCWG Counsel's "Comparison of Independent Review Processes" was provided to Jones Day in advance of it being circulated to the CCWG. In the interests of transparency, please note that Jones Day did not provide line edits identifying the areas of disagreement with CCWG Counsel, but instead provided the attached memorandum for CCWG Counsel's consideration. CCWG Counsel did not revise its Comparison document to reflect the thoughts set forth in the attached Jones Day memo. Sidley/Adler understood that this memo would be shared with the CCWG after their Comparison document was circulated.</font><span style="font-size:inherit;font-family:Calibri"> </span></div><div style="font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;font-weight:normal;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px;font-size:14px;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><br></div><span style="font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;font-weight:normal;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px;font-size:14px;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><div style="font-family:Calibri;font-size:11pt;text-align:left;border-width:1pt medium medium;border-style:solid none none;padding:3pt 0in 0in;border-top-color:rgb(181,196,223)"><span style="font-weight:bold">From:<span> </span></span><<a href="mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org" style="color:purple;text-decoration:underline" target="_blank">accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org</a>> on behalf of "Gregory, Holly" <<a href="mailto:holly.gregory@sidley.com" style="color:purple;text-decoration:underline" target="_blank">holly.gregory@sidley.com</a>><br><span style="font-weight:bold">Date:<span> </span></span>Wednesday, October 7, 2015 at 10:24 PM<br><span style="font-weight:bold">To:<span> </span></span>Thomas Rickert <<a href="mailto:thomas@rickert.net" style="color:purple;text-decoration:underline" target="_blank">thomas@rickert.net</a>>, Mathieu Weill <<a href="mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr" style="color:purple;text-decoration:underline" target="_blank">mathieu.weill@afnic.fr</a>>, León Sánchez Ambía <<a href="mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx" style="color:purple;text-decoration:underline" target="_blank">leonfelipe@sanchez.mx</a>><br><span style="font-weight:bold">Cc:<span> </span></span>Sidley ICANN CCWG <<a href="mailto:sidleyicannccwg@sidley.com" style="color:purple;text-decoration:underline" target="_blank">sidleyicannccwg@sidley.com</a>>, ACCT-Staff <<a href="mailto:acct-staff@icann.org" style="color:purple;text-decoration:underline" target="_blank">acct-staff@icann.org</a>>, ICANN-Adler <<a href="mailto:ICANN@adlercolvin.com" style="color:purple;text-decoration:underline" target="_blank">ICANN@adlercolvin.com</a>>, "<a href="mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org" style="color:purple;text-decoration:underline" target="_blank">accountability-cross-community@icann.org</a>" <<a href="mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org" style="color:purple;text-decoration:underline" target="_blank">accountability-cross-community@icann.org</a>><br><span style="font-weight:bold">Subject:<span> </span></span>[CCWG-ACCT] Comparison of independent review processes<br></div><div><br></div><div><div lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple"><div>Dear CCWG Co-chairs, Members and Participants, Attached please find a comparison of key characteristics of (1) ICANN's current IRP, (2) the IRP under the CCWG 2nd Draft Proposal (in the context of the Community Mechanism as Sole Member Model), and (3) the IRP and MEM set forth in the Board Proposal as requested in L.A. <br>We shared this with Jones Day and ICANN Legal in advance so that they could provide any corrections regarding our understanding of the IRP and MEM as set forth in the Board Proposal.<span> </span><br>Kind regards, Holly and Rosemary<br><br><br><br>Sent with Good (<a href="http://www.good.com/" style="color:purple;text-decoration:underline" target="_blank">www.good.com</a>)<br><strong></strong></div><strong><div><font face="Tahoma" size="2"> </font></div></strong><hr><font face="Tahoma" size="2"><b>From:</b><span> </span>Grapsas, Rebecca<br><b>Sent:</b><span> </span>Wednesday, October 07, 2015 11:45:50 PM<br><b>To:</b><span> </span>Gregory, Holly<br><b>Subject:</b><span> </span><br></font><br><div></div><div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"> </p></div></div><div><br></div><div> <br></div><div>****************************************************************************************************<br>This e-mail is sent by a law firm and may contain information that is privileged or confidential.<br>If you are not the intended recipient, please delete the e-mail and any attachments and notify us<br>immediately.<br><br>****************************************************************************************************</div></div></div></span><span style="font-family:Helvetica;font-size:12px;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;font-weight:normal;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px;float:none;display:inline!important"></span><span><Oct. 7, 2015 Memo re Enforceability of Binding Arbitration[1].pdf></span></div></blockquote></div><br></div></div><br>_______________________________________________<br>
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a><br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div>