In Section 5A (Community Mechanism) it now says: "Under these arrangements the decisions and powers of the CMSM could be enforced through the internal IRP process with the force of binding arbitration and, if necessary, further backed through judicial proceedings." This wording isn't very clear, in several respects. 1) Is it the intent that the single member would automatically have standing before the IRP? If so, that needs to be reflected in Section 4 (IRP). 2) One of the key reasons for selecting the Sole Member model was this it would have the power to require ICANN to enter into and use the IRP process with the force of binding arbitration and, if necessary, that that requirement would be further backed through judicial proceedings - not only for disputes relating to the use by the Sole Member of its power (as stated here), but also as the means of last recourse for resolving other disputes. It is important that this should be reflected in this text so that the public, and indeed ICANN/ and NTIA, are all clear about our intent. -- Malcolm Hutty | tel: +44 20 7645 3523 Head of Public Affairs | Read the LINX Public Affairs blog London Internet Exchange | http://publicaffairs.linx.net/ London Internet Exchange Ltd 21-27 St Thomas Street, London SE1 9RY Company Registered in England No. 3137929 Trinity Court, Trinity Street, Peterborough PE1 1DA