[CCWG-ACCT] Comparison of independent review processes

[Samantha Eisner]

I am forwarding this on behalf of Jones Day, as they do not have sending rights to this list.

Note from Jones Day:

Dear CCWG,

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.

From: <accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org>> on behalf of "Gregory, Holly" <holly.gregory at sidley.com<mailto:holly.gregory at sidley.com>>
Date: Wednesday, October 7, 2015 at 10:24 PM
To: Thomas Rickert <thomas at rickert.net<mailto:thomas at rickert.net>>, Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill at afnic.fr<mailto:mathieu.weill at afnic.fr>>, León Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe at sanchez.mx<mailto:leonfelipe at sanchez.mx>>
Cc: Sidley ICANN CCWG <sidleyicannccwg at sidley.com<mailto:sidleyicannccwg at sidley.com>>, ACCT-Staff <acct-staff at icann.org<mailto:acct-staff at icann.org>>, ICANN-Adler <ICANN at adlercolvin.com<mailto:ICANN at adlercolvin.com>>, "accountability-cross-community at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org>" <accountability-cross-community at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org>>
Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] Comparison of independent review processes


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.
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.
Kind regards, Holly and Rosemary



Sent with Good (www.good.com)


________________________________
From: Grapsas, Rebecca
Sent: Wednesday, October 07, 2015 11:45:50 PM
To: Gregory, Holly
Subject:





****************************************************************************************************
This e-mail is sent by a law firm and may contain information that is privileged or confidential.
If you are not the intended recipient, please delete the e-mail and any attachments and notify us
immediately.

****************************************************************************************************
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20151008/1ceae217/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Oct. 7, 2015 Memo re Enforceability of Binding Arbitration[1].pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 118663 bytes
Desc: Oct. 7, 2015 Memo re Enforceability of Binding Arbitration[1].pdf
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20151008/1ceae217/Oct.72015MemoreEnforceabilityofBindingArbitration1.pdf>