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

[Bruce Tonkin]

Hello Alan,


>>  The CCWG Draft Proposal provides the IRP to allow the community to ensure that ICANN is following its Bylaws. 

Yes the ICANN Board also agrees that the IRP still applies to all bylaws.   It can be used by individuals, companies or groups to bring actions.


>>  In the body of the Board comments, it says that the Board is proposing the MEM to allow the community ensure that ICANN is complying with its Articles of Incorporation and Bylaws. However, in the "Memo on Proposed Approach for Community Enforceability", it says that arbitration may be used only for violation of Fundamental Bylaws.

The MEM is fully funded and is brought by SOs and ACs, if there is a breach of fundamental bylaws,   In the case of the MEM - in addition to funding the cost of the standing panel, the ICANN also will pay the legal advice fees for the MEM issue group.   Much like ICANN is paying for the attorney fees for the CCWG today.

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.

Regards,
Bruce Tonkin