Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Your public comment re replacement of IANA provider
Thanks Bruce. Are you proposing that ICANN cover any IRP costs if it is used by AC/SOs? Alan At 18/09/2015 05:20 AM, Bruce Tonkin wrote:
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
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Can we please confine questions at this time to understanding? Proposing starts to look like negotiating. Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone. Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW. Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597/Direct 202-559-8750/Fax 202-255-6172/Cell Twitter: @VLawDC "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey Original Message From: Alan Greenberg Sent: Friday, September 18, 2015 11:52 AM To: Bruce Tonkin; accountability-cross-community@icann.org Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Your public comment re replacement of IANA provider Thanks Bruce. Are you proposing that ICANN cover any IRP costs if it is used by AC/SOs? Alan At 18/09/2015 05:20 AM, Bruce Tonkin wrote:
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
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community ----- No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2015.0.6081 / Virus Database: 4401/10465 - Release Date: 08/19/15 Internal Virus Database is out of date.
Let me re-phrase that. I appreciate that the Board is suggesting that costs of using the MEM to enforce fundamental Bylaws will be covered by ICANN. Is it also the intent of the proposal submitted by the Board that IRP costs incurred by AC/SOs enforcing regular Bylaws by covered by ICANN? Alan At 18/09/2015 12:49 PM, Phil Corwin wrote:
Can we please confine questions at this time to understanding? Proposing starts to look like negotiating.
Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone.
Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW. Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597/Direct 202-559-8750/Fax 202-255-6172/Cell Twitter: @VLawDC
"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey Original Message From: Alan Greenberg Sent: Friday, September 18, 2015 11:52 AM To: Bruce Tonkin; accountability-cross-community@icann.org Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Your public comment re replacement of IANA provider
Thanks Bruce. Are you proposing that ICANN cover any IRP costs if it is used by AC/SOs?
Alan
At 18/09/2015 05:20 AM, Bruce Tonkin wrote:
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
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
----- No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2015.0.6081 / Virus Database: 4401/10465 - Release Date: 08/19/15 Internal Virus Database is out of date.
Thanks Alan. Exactly! Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597/Direct 202-559-8750/Fax 202-255-6172/cell Twitter: @VlawDC "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey -----Original Message----- From: Alan Greenberg [mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca] Sent: Friday, September 18, 2015 5:21 PM To: Phil Corwin; Bruce Tonkin; accountability-cross-community@icann.org Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Your public comment re replacement of IANA provider Let me re-phrase that. I appreciate that the Board is suggesting that costs of using the MEM to enforce fundamental Bylaws will be covered by ICANN. Is it also the intent of the proposal submitted by the Board that IRP costs incurred by AC/SOs enforcing regular Bylaws by covered by ICANN? Alan At 18/09/2015 12:49 PM, Phil Corwin wrote:
Can we please confine questions at this time to understanding? Proposing starts to look like negotiating.
Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone.
Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW. Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597/Direct 202-559-8750/Fax 202-255-6172/Cell Twitter: @VLawDC
"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey Original Message From: Alan Greenberg Sent: Friday, September 18, 2015 11:52 AM To: Bruce Tonkin; accountability-cross-community@icann.org Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Your public comment re replacement of IANA provider
Thanks Bruce. Are you proposing that ICANN cover any IRP costs if it is used by AC/SOs?
Alan
At 18/09/2015 05:20 AM, Bruce Tonkin wrote:
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
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
----- No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2015.0.6081 / Virus Database: 4401/10465 - Release Date: 08/19/15 Internal Virus Database is out of date.
----- No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2015.0.6081 / Virus Database: 4401/10465 - Release Date: 08/19/15 Internal Virus Database is out of date.
Hello Alan,
I appreciate that the Board is suggesting that costs of using the MEM to enforce fundamental Bylaws will be covered by ICANN.
Correct.
Is it also the intent of the proposal submitted by the Board that IRP costs incurred by AC/SOs enforcing regular Bylaws by covered by ICANN?
That is not in the Board comments, and the Board doesn't have a position on that at this time. Ultimately this becomes a budget question. I am personally OK with some sort of budget for an SO or AC to be able to challenge whether the Board has followed its bylaws. I think it needs to be capped at some amount for any given year. I guess we could stop having face-to-face public ICANN meetings, and put the savings from the travel and meetings budget into a larger budget for the community to spend on legal fees :-) It would also force us all to be more effective at using online collaboration tools. Regards, Bruce Tonkin
On 18-Sep-15 22:06, Bruce Tonkin wrote:
Ultimately this becomes a budget question. I am personally OK with some sort of budget for an SO or AC to be able to challenge whether the Board has followed its bylaws. I think it needs to be capped at some amount for any given year.
I guess we could stop having face-to-face public ICANN meetings, and put the savings from the travel and meetings budget into a larger budget for the community to spend on legal fees :-) It would also force us all to be more effective at using online collaboration tools.
Does this mean that the IRP would remain exorbitant and impossible for regular appellants to use? The fact that the IRP is supported by ICANN and appellants only have to pay their own legal expenses is a major part of the solution offered on redress in the CCWG plan. To have this featured laughed away as its 'redress or f2f meetings, pick one,' is problematic. avri --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
Hello Avri,
Does this mean that the IRP would remain exorbitant and impossible for regular appellants to use?
Yes - that has been my concern also. When we reviewed the IRP last time - the only example was the .xxx case and that cost both sides millions. So I agree it needs to be accessible. Some steps were added - e.g. to try to do the work via exchanges of documents and teleconferences - rather than face-to-face meetings. In the .Africa case the panel decided to move to a face-to-face hearing - which added travel costs for both sides.
The fact that the IRP is supported by ICANN and appellants only have to pay their own legal expenses is a major part of the solution offered on redress in the CCWG plan.
Yes - the Board supports that model too. I was purely referring to the costs of each sides own legal counsel. In the Board's submission, we had proposed paying the costs of the legal counsel for the community in the case of MEM, to specifically address the concern you had raised. Regards, Bruce Tonkin
participants (4)
-
Alan Greenberg -
Avri Doria -
Bruce Tonkin -
Phil Corwin