Thanks Becky. I am also concerned about this aspect. I think it is particularly relevant when evaluating availability of injunctive relief pending arbitration proceedings proposed by the MEM. Anne [cid:image001.gif@01D0F49F.FDECB3F0] Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 (T) 520.629.4428 | (F) 520.879.4725 AAikman@lrrlaw.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrlaw.com> | www.LRRLaw.com<http://www.lrrlaw.com/> From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Burr, Becky Sent: Friday, September 18, 2015 7:57 AM To: Seun Ojedeji; Bruce Tonkin Cc: accountability-cross-community@icann.org Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Your public comment re replacement of IANA provider Furthermore, and more worrisome to me is what the MEM does to the fundamental concept of an independent judiciary. J. Beckwith Burr Neustar, Inc. / Deputy General Counsel and Chief Privacy Officer 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20006 Office: + 1.202.533.2932 Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 / becky.burr@neustar.biz<mailto:becky.burr@neustar.biz> / www.neustar.biz<http://www.neustar.biz> From: Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com<mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com>> Date: Friday, September 18, 2015 at 7:23 AM To: Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au<mailto:Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au>> Cc: Accountability Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Your public comment re replacement of IANA provider On Fri, Sep 18, 2015 at 10:20 AM, Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au<mailto: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<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=AwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=s28TEp9z6_r1hPE3ZiSxezIcPLwyzNB96XzV3g69qJw&s=tT7IgukgeCC6rhExFd-pJAUUwYPaFz8r8XCS08-YBH0&e=> -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Seun Ojedeji, Federal University Oye-Ekiti web: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.fuoye.edu.ng&d=AwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=s28TEp9z6_r1hPE3ZiSxezIcPLwyzNB96XzV3g69qJw&s=EcUX7nplG7Hk22vJbYtgoL3AcRyX1-K-o4tdKEOPang&e=> Mobile: +2348035233535 alt email:seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng<mailto:seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng> Bringing another down does not take you up - think about your action! ________________________________ This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521.
