Dear Lizanne and colleagues,  
Attached please find the comparison as sent to CCWG a few minutes ago.  Please let us know when you would like to schedule our next call.
We remain committed to a constructive dialogue and believe that it is in the best interests of ICANN and the multi-stakeholder community that we lawyers assist in the development of consensus by seeking to resolve any disagreements regarding the legal framework in the interests of providing clear information about the legal implications of the various options under consideration.
Kind regards, Holly and Rosemary



Sent with Good (www.good.com)

 
From: Gregory, Holly
Sent: Thursday, October 08, 2015 12:24:40 AM
To: Thomas Rickert; Mathieu Weill; León Felipe Sánchez Ambía
Cc: Rosemary E. Fei; Sidley ICANN CCWG; ICANN-Adler; accountability-cross-community@icann.org; ACCT-Staff
Subject: 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.

****************************************************************************************************