[CCWG-ACCT] Comparison of independent review processes

[Seun Ojedeji]

Dear Co-Chairs,

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)

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.

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.

Regards

Sent from my Asus Zenfone2
Kindly excuse brevity and typos.
On 8 Oct 2015 20:28, "León Felipe Sánchez Ambía" <leonfelipe at sanchez.mx>
wrote:

> Thanks Sam. This is very useful information.
>
> It would be useful to know how this avoids going into the concerns raised
> by the Board on capture, complexity and uncertainty:
>
> Quote from Jones Day Memo
>
> "Specifically, under the Board’s Proposal, the decision could be *enforced
> by an unincorporated association* comprised of: (i) *an individual
> participating SO/AC* 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) *people
> serving as chairs of the participating SOs/ACs could enforce the award in
> an individual capacity.*"
>
> It would be great if we could have more clarity on this I think.
>
>
> Best regards,
>
>
> León
>
> El 08/10/2015, a las 1:47 p.m., Samantha Eisner <Samantha.Eisner at icann.org>
> escribió:
>
> 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> on behalf of
> "Gregory, Holly" <holly.gregory at sidley.com>
> Date: Wednesday, October 7, 2015 at 10:24 PM
> To: Thomas Rickert <thomas at rickert.net>, Mathieu Weill <
> mathieu.weill at afnic.fr>, León Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe at sanchez.mx>
> Cc: Sidley ICANN CCWG <sidleyicannccwg at sidley.com>, ACCT-Staff <
> acct-staff at icann.org>, ICANN-Adler <ICANN at adlercolvin.com>, "
> accountability-cross-community at icann.org" <
> 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.
>
>
> ****************************************************************************************************
> <Oct. 7, 2015 Memo re Enforceability of Binding Arbitration[1].pdf>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20151008/bcca09f9/attachment.html>