On Fri, Sep 18, 2015 at 10:20 AM, Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au> wrote:

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.

Hello Bruce,

Although I recognise that there could be a situation where the IRP may indeed have made wrong judgement of an issue which the MEM may then conclude in support of ICANN's position not to follow IRP's action. Other than that, considering that the MEM is expected to be generally looking through the same processes/documents that the IRP may have looked into, I don't seem to see the huge advantage that the MEM will bring especially if board did not follow outcome of IRP that eventually receives MEM blessings as well. As it would be would seem like going round in circle.

However there will be a major difference/advantage if you could confirm whether the MEM outcome will be binding/final on ICANN board. Is that the case?

Regards

Regards,
Bruce Tonkin

_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Seun Ojedeji,
Federal University Oye-Ekiti
web: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng
Mobile: +2348035233535
alt email:seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng

Bringing another down does not take you up - think about your action!