April 2015 - Accountability-Cross-Community

Re: [CCWG-ACCT] CCWG ACCT Meeting | 08:00 UTC | 24 April
by Kavouss Arasteh April 16, 2015

April 16, 2015

Dear Co-Chair What does it mean to have two meeting each of two hours with two hours of interval on Friday 24 April? Pls clarify the usefulness of these two almost consequtive meetings Kavouss 2015-04-16 13:03 GMT+02:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh(a)gmail.com>: > Dear Brenda > I have asked you to kindly provide us in a tabular form the lastest > updated schedul for all CCWG and its Working Groups > Regards > KA > > 2015-04-16 12:40 GMT+02:00 Brenda Brewer <brenda.brewer(a)icann.org>: > >> CCWG-Accountability – Friday 24 April 2015 from 08:00 – 10:00 UTC >> Time zone converter *here* >> <http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?msg=CCWG+ACCT+&iso=201…> >> >> *Adobe Connect: *https://icann.adobeconnect.com/accountability/ >> The dial-in details are below - *please let me know if you require a >> dial-out.* >> _______________________________________________________________ >> Participant passcode: *CCWG ACCT * >> >> For security reasons, the passcode will be required to join the call. >> _______________________________________________________________ >> >> Dial in numbers: >> *COUNTRY* *Number* *Toll Free Number* ARGENTINA 0800-777-0519 >> AUSTRALIA ADELAIDE 61-8-8121-4842 1-800-657-260 AUSTRALIA BRISBANE >> 61-7-3102-0944 1-800-657-260 AUSTRALIA CANBERRA 61-2-6100-1944 >> 1-800-657-260 AUSTRALIA MELBOURNE 61-3-9010-7713 1-800-657-260 >> AUSTRALIA PERTH 61-8-9467-5223 1-800-657-260 AUSTRALIA SYDNEY >> 61-2-8205-8129 1-800-657-260 AUSTRIA 43-1-92-81-113 0800-005-259 >> BELGIUM 32-2-400-9861 0800-3-8795 BRAZIL 0800-7610651 CHILE >> 1230-020-2863 CHINA CHINA – A 86-400-810-4789 10800-712-1670 CHINA CHINA >> – B 86-400-810-4789 10800-120-1670 COLOMBIA 01800-9-156474 CZECH >> REPUBLIC 420-2-25-98-56-64 800-700-177 DENMARK 45-7014-0284 8088-8324 >> ESTONIA 800-011-1093 FINLAND Land Line 106-33-203 0-800-9-14610 FINLAND >> Mobile 09-106-33-203 0-800-9-14610 FRANCE LYON 33-4-26-69-12-85 >> 080-511-1496 FRANCE MARSEILLE 33-4-86-06-00-85 080-511-1496 FRANCE >> PARIS 33-1-70-70-60-72 080-511-1496 GERMANY 49-69-2222-20362 >> 0800-664-4247 GREECE 30-80-1-100-0687 00800-12-7312 HONG KONG >> 852-3001-3863 800-962-856 HUNGARY 06-800-12755 INDIA 000-800-852-1268 >> INDONESIA 001-803-011-3982 IRELAND 353-1-246-7646 1800-992-368 ISRAEL >> 1-80-9216162 ITALY 39-02-3600-6007 800-986-383 JAPAN OSAKA >> 81-6-7739-4799 0066-33-132439 JAPAN TOKYO 81-3-5539-5191 0066-33-132439 >> LATVIA 8000-3185 LUXEMBOURG 352-27-000-1364 MALAYSIA 1-800-81-3065 >> MEXICO 001-866-376-9696 NETHERLANDS 31-20-718-8588 0800-023-4378 NEW >> ZEALAND 64-9-970-4771 0800-447-722 NORWAY 47-21-590-062 800-15157 >> PANAMA 001-800-5072065 PERU 0800-53713 PHILIPPINES 63-2-858-3716 >> POLAND 00-800-1212572 PORTUGAL 8008-14052 RUSSIA 8-10-8002-0144011 >> SINGAPORE 65-6883-9230 800-120-4663 SLOVAK REPUBLIC 421-2-322-422-25 SOUTH >> AFRICA 080-09-80414 SOUTH KOREA 82-2-6744-1083 00798-14800-7352 SPAIN >> 34-91-414-25-33 800-300-053 SWEDEN 46-8-566-19-348 0200-884-622 >> SWITZERLAND 41-44-580-6398 0800-120-032 TAIWAN 886-2-2795-7379 >> 00801-137-797 THAILAND 001-800-1206-66056 UNITED KINGDOM BIRMINGHAM 44-121-210-9025 >> 0808-238-6029 UNITED KINGDOM GLASGOW 44-141-202-3225 0808-238-6029 UNITED >> KINGDOM LEEDS 44-113-301-2125 0808-238-6029 UNITED KINGDOM LONDON >> 44-20-7108-6370 0808-238-6029 UNITED KINGDOM MANCHESTER 44-161-601-1425 >> 0808-238-6029 URUGUAY 000-413-598-3421 USA 1-517-345-9004 >> 866-692-5726 VENEZUELA 0800-1-00-3702 >> >> >> >> > >

2 2

Quality of our proposal will suffer from this pace that leaves no time for consideration and meaningful evaluation
by Robin Gross April 16, 2015

April 16, 2015

I must join in the chorus of voices saying that this compressed timeline is not going to produce a quality proposal. Sure, we can slap something together, which only a small handful have thought about, but we won't get anywhere close to doing our best work, or even a good proposal at this pace. We just don't have the time to think through all of the issues that must be thought through and to have answers to the questions that are foundational to the rest of our work. The confusion about what is actually being proposed and then advice that doesn't address what is under consideration is but one example of how the quality of our work is suffering by the frenetic pace. Either this group is in charge of its own processes, or it isn't. It is beginning to look like the group is not in control, as imaginary imposed "deadlines" are the main driving consideration for us now. Not quality. This is a grave mistake. We simply must take the time to think all of this through and engage with the community on these crucial matters. That is the only way to get a quality result. The rush job to meet imaginary deadlines is creating greater problems every day and will only exacerbate as we go forward. I remain committed to participating in a dozen or so calls a week, but I'm under no illusion that this last-minute cram job will be any more effective at building global governance institutions than it is to college freshman learning on the night before their final exam. Best, Robin

11 15

Notes-Recordings-Transcript links for Accountability Meeting #10 on 15 April
by Brenda Brewer April 16, 2015

April 16, 2015

Dear all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for the Accountability WP1 Meeting #10 on 15 April will be available here: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=52895958 Action Items Action: Avri Doria to write a short explanation Notes Accountability WP1 Meeting #10 on 15 April. Links: WP1 Drafts - <http://tinyurl.com/puvneyq> http://tinyurl.com/puvneyq These high-level notes are designed to help you navigate through content of the call and do not substitute in any way the transcript. About the agenda: legal document with WP2 template and legal advice on some. CCWG Tuesday a presentation by the lawyers on powers and mechanisms. Some questions not asked, and clear in the call that the CCWG is far from agreement as to the mechanisms to choose. So WP1 is not close to recommending a mechanisms by Friday. On the co-chair coordination, need the debate in the CCWG to have the discussion about mechanisms next week. WP1 discussed Q&A items, to ask q of the lawyers, and WP1 written questions will be forwarded. So when we have the meetings next week, we are all in a better position to refine down to critical points and the mechanisms. Not a decision making call. To talk about the issues with the lawyers. To debate with the fill CCWG next week. 40 minutes. Followed by review of the 3rd draft "CCWG-ACCT Working Party 1: Community Empowerment Input for First Public Comment Report" 2. Q&A with Counsel on the "Mechanism" debate Question: different advantages/disadvantages of the designator model and the membership model. Strongest reason to select and drawback to each model. Advantage of membership is also the weakness. Statutory framework of rights in the corporation code. Members are given rights under bylaws or statute that cannot be given to designators. Some rights are those the CCWG wants. They are provided in the statute. The downside is the extensive framework of statutory rights that should be built into the bylaws, protections and rights. There is a lot of procedure and detail in the bylaws Advantage of designator is ignoring all of that. And disadvantage is that corporate law does not give rights that re available in the statute. To make those rights available, have to look to contact. CA corporations code allows any provision in the bylaws that you want for internal governance, that is not prohibited by law. If there are procedures you want to follow (reconsideration etc) can be out in, so long as not illegal. And what happens with enforce-ability. What happens if someone (the board) decides not to follow within the system, may have a harder time to respond in the designator system than the member system. If the SO/AC become members, are the liable. If GNSO designed a gTLD designed a policy that everyone thought silly and cause companies to loose millions $$$ could the GSNO be sued for this? CA law requires legal persons. For the designator model. legal advice is the designators be legal persons, or there'd be no means to legally enforce bylaws etc. This has worked for ICANN, perhaps we don't care? But having legal persons does also bring complications. So unincorporated associations are recommended for designators and members. And in member model the law says members are persons. If not legal persons then they only exist inside ICANN. So there is no legal recourse. They have the right to contract and the right to sue, and the burden of being sued. But the unincorporated associations have no "blood" no value. The unincorporated associations only can be sued, the participants are not liable. (Agreement from legal advisor) Freedom from lawsuit. Believe forming as unincorporated associations should not cause liability, and can protect the participants. They don't have assets. Crazy people might file lawsuits but expect those to be thrown out pretty quickly. Legal advisors do not think this is a significant concern. Q. Members and designators. GNSO made up of 4 distinct and different parts, unlikely to come to agreement on any issue. GNSO needs 4 distinct votes, weighted. Is this legally doable? In a member structure, members of different classes could be given different votes, quarters, or 4 votes, etc. In the designator structure, each would appoint their own Directors. It's the internal structures that would elect the same number directors. Second pathway, the same mechanisms as used to select the GNSO director could be how you vote as a designator or a member. Q. Designing a mechanism to induce the Board to consider, and what such a mechanism might look like. Advice that is received but not acted on. How to cause board action. Mechanisms to force a consideration by the board. in the member or designator structure could design a structure to whenever the member or designator petition the board for a hearing they get a hearing. A convening power to the community. q. if we get that mechanism, can the board then be forced to respond in such a way that can then be subjected to review, for example a triggering of a review mechanism. The outcome of the convened meeting has 3 results: do the thing people want, not do the thing, not take a decision. And those could be triggers for an IRP. A little easier with membership, but probably work around with the designators, not aware of the problem. q. NomCom. Would need to be a legal entity. Question, how to remove a directors appointed by the NomCom, could this only be done by a NomCom. Under the designator system only be removed by that entity. So under the designator system would need to be created as a legal person, restructured in some way. Under the member system, can mix designators, and NomCom could be organized as a designator in a member organized system. q. Designator model, contractual arrangements can make the designator model respond to the major requirements of the CCWG? q. if no additional measures to the designator model, what can we do an not do? Under designator system they cannot be given powers around budget and strategy, and also certain decisions around a review process. What is the minimum: even if you decide to maintain a designator system lead advice if the designators are organized as legal persons, to provide protection against liability, a shield, and in the future if needed, they would have standing to enforce their rights. q. putting the membership into place would be more complicated and take longer? Not considerably more complex. The way currently organized into groups that are like members. The member structure relies on some more subtle areas of law. But not a radical change from the designator structure. Look at discrete member rights and say not so complex, but in CA there are elaborate members requirements, notice requirements, inspection rights, etc., that make it more complicated to implement. (fro chat) I would like to clarify. I think for member corporation, as Ingrid said, the complexity is in the rights and statutory framework. I Think with designators, the complexity is in designing the contractual arrangements. So I would say they are both complex, but perhaps in different ways. q. legal sub-team, ask for questions in writing, what happens to those questions: what steps? Questions are reviewed by the legal sub-team, not all are sent. Questions are sent through, or they are collated and sent to counsel. label any question for counsel, and break out questions from long threads. 4. Public Comment Document content Review the document part by part. Comment: 6.5.2 Power to reject budget/strategy. Suggest the title should include reconsideration, the board should be given that option. Rejection comes later. Correct the inconsistency. Response: In each situation described, there is a reconsider requirement while there is a block of execution going on. Global public interest. What re the criteria for that? What are the ICANN stakeholders. page 3, 2nd power. Change adopted to approved, and these are suggested global changes for the document. Ratios: 50%, 60% subsequent rejection: suggest higher for what an extreme measures, raise by 10% - 15%. Question, should these ratios should considered in comparison with the other powers and the importance of other powers? Think of the rights of members of an organization usually in terms of approval of the budget. issues of detail. Is it a positive right to approve or a negative right to object? But this will not be a process of the community coming in to approve, it will only occur when the community has an issue with the board's actions. 6.5.3 increased threshold for the right to object. Title should also match content (as with 6.5.2.) Fundamental and non-fundamental bylaws. Which are the fundamental bylaws. Timeline of 2 weeks to short, and threshold is too low. Timeline for bylaws change already require a public comment, the additional time is not so long as it will have been extensively publicly discussed. How to distinguish between fundamental bylaws? We propose what they are, and these come from WP2. Mink around core mission and values. And will be visible what they are. WP2 will identify them and describe why they merit protections. Fundamental bylaws tend to go to the core of corporation, and those being suggested seem to do that. And they would be clearly set out that they had different mechanisms for change etc. Who can change or propose changes to fundamental bylaws. ATRT and other review teams have suggested bylaws changes. Believe SO/AC can recommend to the Board to make bylaws changes, but it is a Board mechanism. And the Board on its own initiative can move to amend bylaws. Does this with the 2/3 majority. Anticipate changes to fundamental bylaws would be higher. 6.5.5. recalling individual directors Removal of the NomCom appointed directors. Is the IETF model one to consider? Threshold: 40%, concern too low. Recall methods within stakeholder groups. escalation mechanism: not suggesting the NomCom is the body to remove a director, but suggesting that there should be a way to remove them through a community mechanism. Consideration that it is not appropriate for the NomCom to be the remover. As yet we don't know the mechanism. Threshold: for now, that it should be the majority of the community, but to be discussed on the full CCWG IETF model: Petition to assemble a recall NomCom. Same rules of the regular NomCom, but is single issue. Decide on the 75% basis to remove or not. Offer to draft the analogous procedures. Action: Avri Doria to write a short explanation. 5. Agenda for Next Call Paper is the sole subject of the next call. Jordan will add comments to Ver 3 of the document. Next call will pick up at the end of 6.5.5. 19:00 UTC Thursday April 16.

1 0

Comments and questions on legal docs
by Samantha Eisner April 16, 2015

April 16, 2015

I have a group of questions, and share this with WP1 as well as the broader CCWG as well for consideration. Some of them are legal issues, some of them are more accountability related issues for CCWG consideration now that we have some guidance from the lawyers. To help illustrate my concerns, I’ve followed Robin’s Chart format and created two of my own, (though my excel powers clearly are nowhere near hers!). The first chart is based off of the slides that were presented on today’s CCWG call, in particular the membership and the delegate slides. I have removed reference to the TLG as it no longer has a role in appointing Board members and is itself a collection of external groups. I have also included the ALAC, which was not fully referenced on those slides as it is the At-Large Community that is the body that appoints to the Board, not the ALAC, therefore I think we need to look at how the ALAC is considered within this process. Using the same 6 powers that Robin highlighted in her chart, I then took those powers and identified how I understand the powers to be exercised by the different Sos and Acs when relying on a membership or designator model, to get a better sense of where the groups that are formally identified as members or designators could act, which then raises the questions of what happens to those groups that are not identified as members or designators. This seems to me to be a key area where we need to focus – how does the move to a different structure actually impact the multistakeholder actors within ICANN? Some of the key questions that I propose we need to consider are: 1. If there is a move to member organization, what does it really mean in terms of exercising of community powers if some Sos/Acs are members and some aren’t? 2. If there are members/non-members how much of the relationships among the Sos and Acs in exercising community powers would be based in contract? Would non-members need to enter into contracts too, or would their powers just be expressed within the Bylaws or Articles of incorporation? 3. If contracts are required, wouldn’t that also require the formation of some sort of legal entity (unincorporated association or otherwise) to enter into the agreements, even among non-members? Who are the parties to these contracts? 4. Would each of the groups that are members have be subject to California law once they form as an unincorporated association (or other legal entity)? Is this viable across the ICANN community? 5. How is a group such as the At-Large Community to be recognized as an unincorporated association? If the GAC wanted to be a member, is that something that is even possible for it to do? Or the ccNSO, keeping in mind the concerns that Chris Disspain raised on our call? Or any other group? Is this feasible? 6. What are the mechanisms that the members will use to be accountable to each other, particularly when there is no fiduciary duty and the expectation of acting in personal interest? 7. Particularly if there are members/non-members, what accountability mechanisms will be in place to make sure that the members don’t act to the disadvantage of non-members? (Examples: blocking a budget that includes funds for the performance of the IANA functions in service to the protocol parameters community, assuming the IETF is not a member; blocking a board action that is intended to enact a non-member advisory committee’s advice) 8. Where does the NomCom belong? Is it appropriate for a group that changes composition on a yearly basis to be a member? Is it a collective association of all entities that currently appoint delegates to the NomCom? Does that give some members more say that others if there are members/non-members to ICANN (Ex: GNSO appoints multiple delegates through its Sgs and Constituencies – would those groups get to impact both NomCom exercise of membership as well as GNSO exercise of membership?) 9. To what extent does the designator model rely on the formation of associations and contracts to achieve the stated reforms? The second sheet (membership rights) are the enumerated powers of members that were set forth in Sidley’s 12 April memo to the CCWG. Understanding that each of these can be applicable to members, how are they applicable to non-members? There are likely additional questions, but these are some of the hallmark ones that stand out to me if we look at how structural changes could actually be applied to ICANN, and not just look at it from the pure legal view of structures that would empower the anticipated solutions. Once we understand these a bit more, then we can turn to the more fundamental questions of whether the positives and negatives of what can be achieved through the proposed structural changes make those changes the best ways to achieve the reforms. That can include issues of practicality of implementation, time for implementation, the ability for less complex measures to achieve many goals (such as developing robust Bylaws revisions) while identifying that if more major changes such as the systemic move to membership is seen as appropriate after robust community debate, that the Board would be obligated to take that recommendation on (similar to how WS2 will be treated). Thanks for your consideration of these issues. Best, Sam

4 4

Fwd: Update following High Intensity CWG Stewardship meetings
by Mathieu Weill April 16, 2015

April 16, 2015

Dear Colleagues, Please find attached a correspondence from the CWG co chairs updating about the intensive set of meetings they held on 13 & 14 April. This correspondence highlights how the CWG proposals will rely on our own WS1 recommendations. Best regards, Mathieu -------- Message transféré -------- Sujet : Update following High Intensity CWG Stewardship meetings Date : Wed, 15 Apr 2015 22:47:54 +0100 De : Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson(a)afilias.info> Répondre à : jrobinson(a)afilias.info Organisation : Afilias Pour : Mathieu Weill <Mathieu.Weill(a)afnic.fr>, Thomas Rickert <rickert(a)anwaelte.de>, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe(a)sanchez.mx> Copie à : Lise Fuhr <lise.fuhr(a)difo.dk> Dear Mathieu, Thomas and Leon, We are pleased to be able to provide you with an update (attached) following the intensive set of meetings of the CWG over the past 2 days (13 & 14 April 2015). We have worked hard towards the goal of producing the draft proposal that we aim to distribute for public comment on 20^April 2015. Our work concentrated on: 1.Finalising the work of our Design Teams which are focussed on operational and technical details of the draft proposal 2.Developing the key structural aspects of the model supporting our draft proposal (with the assistance of our professional advisers) As you are well aware, the CWG proposal will rely on the work of the CCWG in various key areas and the primary objective of this email is therefore to provide you with an update (and additional detail) on precisely those areas of dependency. The timely delivery of your work is vital to the CWG. Over the course of the CWG’s collaboration with the CCWG we have always recognised the dependence and it has become increasingly clear that the CWG is relying on your ICANN accountability work, to co-ordinated timescales, in order to support key aspects of the CWG’s proposal. The relative simplicity of the CWG proposal is predicated on your work. We look forward to continuing to work with you and to any updates you can provide on your continued progress. Best wishes, Jonathan and Lise CWG Co-Chairs

2 1

community powers comparison: designator & membership model - what powers can we create and how to enforce them?
by Robin Gross April 16, 2015

April 16, 2015

Hello Team, What we need to do is take a hard look at both the membership model and the designator model and understand what rights can be created and how will they be enforced. Once we understand what we *can* do, we need to look at the pros/cons of the different models and evaluate accordingly. But first, we need to understand what *can* be done so we can discuss *if* we ought to do it and what is the best means. So I've taken a first pass of each of the 6 community empowerment goals and created a comparison table to lay-out what rights can be created and how they can be enforced. I've combed through all the 200+ pages of legal memos, today's CCWG call, and calls of the legal sub-team to compile this info into one table so the models can begin to be evaluated side-by-side. The doc is attached and also here is a link to the table comparing the 2 models: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1kkkRBpMUkTpD5_RP_Ogo1PTGzGt2kC6f1xo… I am hopeful it can begin to help us to wrap our minds around what our goals are and how they could be accomplished by the two models at play. Thanks, Robin

5 6

Re: [CCWG-ACCT] [Acct-Legal] community powers comparison: designator & membership model - what powers can we create and how to enforce them?
by Greg Shatan April 16, 2015

April 16, 2015

I think that qualifies as a Freudian slip.... In any event, there is no Friday call (as far as those of us in the Americas and Europe are concerned) (the Thursday call is a Friday call in Asia/New Zealand/Australia). Therefore, we need to consider what is the appropriate deadline for this chart. I don't know when the next WP1 call is after the one upcoming in 15 hours. The next full CCWG call is not until Tuesday April 21 19.00 UTC (Day and time are UTC). Greg Shatan On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 12:58 AM, List for the work of CCWG-Accountability Legal SubTeam <ccwg-accountability5(a)icann.org> wrote: > That was meant to be : We need time.... > > > > Sent with Good (www.good.com) > > ------------------------------ > *From:* ccwg-accountability5-bounces(a)icann.org on behalf of List for the > work of CCWG-Accountability Legal SubTeam > *Sent:* Wednesday, April 15, 2015 11:56:28 PM > *To:* ccwg-accountability5(a)icann.org; Jordan Carter > > *Cc:* ACCT-Staff; ccwg-accountability5(a)icann.org; Accountability Cross > Community > *Subject:* Re: [Acct-Legal] [CCWG-ACCT] community powers comparison: > designator & membership model - what powers can we create and how to > enforce them? > > Dear CCWG, We will not be on the call. We bleed time to comment on the > chart which was only received this afternoon. We will plan to have the > chart to you on Friday morning. Thank you, Holly > > > > Sent with Good (www.good.com) > > ------------------------------ > *From:* ccwg-accountability5-bounces(a)icann.org on behalf of List for the > work of CCWG-Accountability Legal SubTeam > *Sent:* Wednesday, April 15, 2015 11:45:07 PM > *To:* Jordan Carter > *Cc:* ACCT-Staff; ccwg-accountability5(a)icann.org; Accountability Cross > Community > *Subject:* Re: [Acct-Legal] [CCWG-ACCT] community powers comparison: > designator & membership model - what powers can we create and how to > enforce them? > > 4 hours before the call is 8 am on the West Coast (where it is now 9:45 > PM) and 11 am on the East Coast (where it is now 12:45 AM). I tend to doubt > that 4 hours prior to the call is likely to happen, since most of the > difference between 12 hours and 4 hours is overnight for us. > > I also realized as I looked at this that we had a day-conversion > misunderstanding as well, since we were responding to your email "I know > this is bold, but is there any chance a reviewed copy might be available > for discussion in WP1 on Friday?" Unfortunately, you were referring to > your Friday, but our Thursday. Not realizing that on the legal sub team > call, we discussed having the lawyers ready the document in anticipation of > a Friday call (our Friday). Even that would be a short turn-around, but not > short enough for a call that's really happening on Thursday. > > In any event, I am going to circulate to the main list a copy of the > second draft that counsel is reviewing, so people know what is happening, > and know not to refer to the first draft. > > Greg > > > On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 12:31 AM, Jordan Carter <jordan(a)internetnz.net.nz> > wrote: > >> Hi there - if it's four or so hours that is still OK. But aside from >> that, too late, and we won't ask people to read it as a late paper. >> >> I'd like to emphasise that that's OK - the input is primarily for a >> debate that the CCWG as a whole is having, and so this work will be a very >> useful tool for that. >> >> thanks, >> Jordan >> >> >> On 16 April 2015 at 16:27, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía < >> leonfelipe(a)sanchez.mx> wrote: >> >>> Thank you Rosemary, >>> >>> Here’s a link to a tool that might prove to be useful while converting >>> into UTC >>> http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/converted.html?iso=20150416T07&p1=0&p… >>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.timeanddate.com_wor…> >>> >>> And yes, that is in less than three hours. >>> >>> Jordan, can you confirme Counsel won’t be required in the call? >>> >>> >>> Best regards, >>> >>> >>> León >>> >>> El 15/04/2015, a las 23:20, List for the work of CCWG-Accountability >>> Legal SubTeam <ccwg-accountability5(a)icann.org> escribió: >>> >>> León and Jordan: >>> >>> I’m new to converting from UTC, but I believe the deadline (0700 UTC) >>> is in less than three hours. If that’s correct, then no, legal counsel >>> cannot have our comments to Robin’s chart ready by then. >>> >>> Rosemary >>> >>> *From:* ccwg-accountability5-bounces(a)icann.org [ >>> mailto:ccwg-accountability5-bounces@icann.org >>> <ccwg-accountability5-bounces(a)icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *List for the >>> work of CCWG-Accountability Legal SubTeam >>> *Sent:* Wednesday, April 15, 2015 9:04 PM >>> *To:* Jordan Carter >>> *Cc:* ACCT-Staff; ccwg-accountability5(a)icann.org; Accountability Cross >>> Community >>> *Subject:* Re: [Acct-Legal] [CCWG-ACCT] community powers comparison: >>> designator & membership model - what powers can we create and how to >>> enforce them? >>> >>> Thanks for the quick return Jordan. >>> >>> Counsel, is Jordan’s message clear? >>> >>> Your attendance would be needed on WP1 call *only* if the document is >>> ready under the stated times. >>> >>> Would this timeline be able to be met? >>> >>> >>> Best regards, >>> >>> >>> León >>> >>> >>> El 15/04/2015, a las 22:10, Jordan Carter <jordan(a)internetnz.net.nz> >>> escribió: >>> >>> Hi folks >>> >>> If the lawyers are on track to finish adding their material / views >>> to the table that Robin proposed and are ready to circulate that to me and >>> everyone else by 0700 UTC on Thursday, then *yes*, I would like to >>> invite them to be the first item on the call, from 1900 to 1920 on the call >>> on Thursday (UTC). >>> >>> Otherwise, no counsel are required. >>> >>> We won't deal with any material that can't reach the 12h deadline, >>> unless it's like 11h or 10h. >>> >>> So - please advise ASAP the timeline. >>> >>> IN terms of what we have to do on that call, introducing this >>> material will be helpful, but we don't need to make decisions on it. That's >>> why it is a 20 mins slot at the start of the call - we do have to finish >>> the rest. >>> >>> >>> thanks, >>> Jordan >>> >>> >>> On 16 April 2015 at 13:08, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía < >>> leonfelipe(a)sanchez.mx> wrote: >>> Dear Jordan, >>> >>> Could you please confirm whether you will be needing the lawyers to >>> attend your call on Friday? >>> >>> Staff, if Jordan does confirm the need to invite the lawyers, could >>> you please make sure they get the invitations with the call details? >>> >>> >>> Best regards, >>> >>> >>> León >>> >>> >>> El 15/04/2015, a las 19:56, List for the work of CCWG-Accountability >>> Legal SubTeam <ccwg-accountability5(a)icann.org> escribió: >>> >>> Dear Leon and Jordan, >>> >>> Could you please let us know if outside counsel is being asked to >>> join the WP1 call on Friday referenced below, and if so, could you let us >>> know the time of the call and arrange for an invitation to be sent to us? >>> >>> Thanks, >>> >>> *TYLER* *HILTON* >>> Associate >>> >>> *Sidley Austin LLP* >>> +1.213.896.6130 >>> >>> thilton(a)sidley.com >>> >>> >>> *From:* ccwg-accountability5-bounces(a)icann.org [ >>> mailto:ccwg-accountability5-bounces@icann.org >>> <ccwg-accountability5-bounces(a)icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *List for the >>> work of CCWG-Accountability Legal SubTeam >>> *Sent:* Wednesday, April 15, 2015 4:01 AM >>> *To:* ccwg-accountability5(a)icann.org; Jordan Carter >>> *Cc:* ccwg-accountability5(a)icann.org; Accountability Cross Community >>> *Subject:* Re: [Acct-Legal] [CCWG-ACCT] community powers comparison: >>> designator & membership model - what powers can we create and how to >>> enforce them? >>> >>> Dear Leon and Jordan, We should be able to have this ready within >>> the next day or so and definitely prior to Friday's call. Kind regards, >>> Holly. >>> >>> >>> >>> Sent with Good (www.good.com >>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.good.com_&d=AwMFaQ&…> >>> ) >>> >>> ------------------------------ >>> >>> *From:* ccwg-accountability5-bounces(a)icann.org on behalf of List for >>> the work of CCWG-Accountability Legal SubTeam >>> *Sent:* Wednesday, April 15, 2015 12:32:18 AM >>> *To:* Jordan Carter >>> *Cc:* ccwg-accountability5(a)icann.org; Accountability Cross Community >>> *Subject:* Re: [Acct-Legal] [CCWG-ACCT] community powers comparison: >>> designator & membership model - what powers can we create and how to >>> enforce them? >>> Dear Holly and Rosemary, >>> >>> Would Jordan’s request be possible? >>> >>> >>> Best regards, >>> >>> >>> León >>> >>> >>> El 15/04/2015, a las 0:26, Jordan Carter <jordan(a)internetnz.net.nz> >>> escribió: >>> >>> >>> I know this is bold, but is there any chance a reviewed copy might be >>> available for discussion in WP1 on Friday? >>> Many thanks >>> Jordan >>> >>> On 15 April 2015 at 17:00, List for the work of CCWG-Accountability >>> Legal SubTeam <ccwg-accountability5(a)icann.org> wrote: >>> Dear Holly and Rosemary, >>> >>> >>> Please do review Robin’s table. I apologize for the delay on >>> assignment and don’t expect you to have elaborated for our call tomorrow >>> but rather give an initial review so we can further discuss in our call >>> tomorrow. >>> >>> >>> Best regards, >>> >>> >>> León >>> >>> >>> El 14/04/2015, a las 16:42, List for the work of CCWG-Accountability >>> Legal SubTeam <ccwg-accountability5(a)icann.org> escribió: >>> >>> Happy to review with direction from Legal Subteam. Please provide >>> direction ASAP. Holly >>> >>> >>> >>> Sent with Good (www.good.com >>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.good.com_&d=AwMF-g&…> >>> ) >>> >>> ------------------------------ >>> >>> *From:* ccwg-accountability5-bounces(a)icann.org on behalf of List for >>> the work of CCWG-Accountability Legal SubTeam >>> *Sent:* Tuesday, April 14, 2015 03:45:49 PM >>> *To:* ccwg-accountability5(a)icann.org >>> *Cc:* Accountability Cross Community >>> *Subject:* Re: [Acct-Legal] [CCWG-ACCT] community powers comparison: >>> designator & membership model - what powers can we create and how to >>> enforce them? >>> Fantastic work Robin and much appreciated! >>> >>> I echo Greg's comments concerning the role of litigation in both >>> models. I do like the format and I think it would be a great idea to have >>> it reviewed and improved upon, if necessary, by counsel, for distribution >>> to the general list. >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> Ed >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 8:19 PM, List for the work of >>> CCWG-Accountability Legal SubTeam <ccwg-accountability5(a)icann.org> >>> wrote: >>> Robin, >>> >>> Thank you for this. A great deal of effort clearly went into this >>> and this should develop into a very useful tool. However, I think we will >>> need to have this reviewed by legal counsel before we rely on it. Having >>> reviewed this briefly, I am uncertain that at this stage this document >>> accurately captures the legal advice, particularly with regard to how the >>> rights can be enforced. >>> >>> Specifically, this seems to give the impression that, if the >>> membership model were chosen, the members would be limited to running off >>> to court in most cases should rights need to be enforced. I'm fairly >>> confident that is not the case. I believe that the remedies listed for the >>> designator model, particularly changes to the bylaws and the IRP, are >>> equally available in the member model. With regard to litigation, I think >>> the distinction is that the designators have no ability to litigate on >>> behalf of the corporation, while this is one possibility (but far from the >>> only one) available to members. In other words, such litigation is an >>> extra power, not the only power, available to members. >>> >>> The Legal Sub Team (copied here) should discuss how to proceed. >>> >>> Thank you again for taking the laboring oar in pulling this together! >>> >>> Best regards, >>> >>> Greg >>> >>> On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 2:35 PM, Robin Gross <robin(a)ipjustice.org> >>> wrote: >>> >>> Hello Team, >>> >>> What we need to do is take a hard look at both the membership model and >>> the designator model and understand what rights can be created and how will >>> they be enforced. Once we understand what we *can* do, we need to look at >>> the pros/cons of the different models and evaluate accordingly. >>> >>> But first, we need to understand what *can* be done so we can discuss >>> *if* we ought to do it and what is the best means. >>> >>> So I've taken a first pass of each of the 6 community empowerment goals >>> and created a comparison table to lay-out what rights can be created and >>> how they can be enforced. I've combed through all the 200+ pages of legal >>> memos, today's CCWG call, and calls of the legal sub-team to compile this >>> info into one table so the models can begin to be evaluated side-by-side. >>> >>> The doc is attached and also here is a link to the table comparing the 2 >>> models: >>> >>> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1kkkRBpMUkTpD5_RP_Ogo1PTGzGt2kC6f1xo… >>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_spread…> >>> >>> I am hopeful it can begin to help us to wrap our minds around what our >>> goals are and how they could be accomplished by the two models at play. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Robin >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list >>> Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org >>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community >>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_l…> >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Ccwg-accountability5 mailing list >>> Ccwg-accountability5(a)icann.org >>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-accountability5 >>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_l…> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> **************************************************************************************************** >>> 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. >>> >>> >>> **************************************************************************************************** >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Ccwg-accountability5 mailing list >>> Ccwg-accountability5(a)icann.org >>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-accountability5 >>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_l…> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Ccwg-accountability5 mailing list >>> Ccwg-accountability5(a)icann.org >>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-accountability5 >>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_l…> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> >>> Jordan Carter >>> >>> Chief Executive >>> *InternetNZ* >>> >>> 04 495 2118 (office) | +64 21 442 649 <%2B64%2021%20442%20649> (mob) >>> jordan(a)internetnz.net.nz >>> Skype: jordancarter >>> >>> *A better world through a better Internet * >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list >>> Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org >>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community >>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_l…> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Ccwg-accountability5 mailing list >>> Ccwg-accountability5(a)icann.org >>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-accountability5 >>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_l…> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> >>> Jordan Carter >>> >>> Chief Executive >>> *InternetNZ* >>> >>> 04 495 2118 (office) | +64 21 442 649 (mob) >>> jordan(a)internetnz.net.nz >>> Skype: jordancarter >>> >>> *A better world through a better Internet * >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Ccwg-accountability5 mailing list >>> Ccwg-accountability5(a)icann.org >>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-accountability5 >>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_l…> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> Jordan Carter >> >> Chief Executive >> *InternetNZ* >> >> 04 495 2118 (office) | +64 21 442 649 (mob) >> jordan(a)internetnz.net.nz >> Skype: jordancarter >> >> *A better world through a better Internet * >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list >> Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community >> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_l…> >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > Ccwg-accountability5 mailing list > Ccwg-accountability5(a)icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-accountability5 > >

1 0

Re: [CCWG-ACCT] [Acct-Legal] community powers comparison: designator & membership model - what powers can we create and how to enforce them?
by León Felipe Sánchez Ambía April 16, 2015

April 16, 2015

Thanks Holly. Although bleed seemed more suitable for the situation :-) Rosemary, Yes, as for the confusion it turns out there is no Friday call for which to have ready the chart. I would suggest we keep the deadline for Friday anyway. Best regards, León > El 15/04/2015, a las 23:58, List for the work of CCWG-Accountability Legal SubTeam <ccwg-accountability5(a)icann.org> escribió: > > That was meant to be : We need time.... > > > > Sent with Good (www.good.com) > > From: ccwg-accountability5-bounces(a)icann.org on behalf of List for the work of CCWG-Accountability Legal SubTeam > Sent: Wednesday, April 15, 2015 11:56:28 PM > To: ccwg-accountability5(a)icann.org; Jordan Carter > Cc: ACCT-Staff; ccwg-accountability5(a)icann.org; Accountability Cross Community > Subject: Re: [Acct-Legal] [CCWG-ACCT] community powers comparison: designator & membership model - what powers can we create and how to enforce them? > > Dear CCWG, We will not be on the call. We bleed time to comment on the chart which was only received this afternoon. We will plan to have the chart to you on Friday morning. Thank you, Holly > > > > Sent with Good (www.good.com) > > From: ccwg-accountability5-bounces(a)icann.org on behalf of List for the work of CCWG-Accountability Legal SubTeam > Sent: Wednesday, April 15, 2015 11:45:07 PM > To: Jordan Carter > Cc: ACCT-Staff; ccwg-accountability5(a)icann.org; Accountability Cross Community > Subject: Re: [Acct-Legal] [CCWG-ACCT] community powers comparison: designator & membership model - what powers can we create and how to enforce them? > > 4 hours before the call is 8 am on the West Coast (where it is now 9:45 PM) and 11 am on the East Coast (where it is now 12:45 AM). I tend to doubt that 4 hours prior to the call is likely to happen, since most of the difference between 12 hours and 4 hours is overnight for us. > > I also realized as I looked at this that we had a day-conversion misunderstanding as well, since we were responding to your email "I know this is bold, but is there any chance a reviewed copy might be available for discussion in WP1 on Friday?" Unfortunately, you were referring to your Friday, but our Thursday. Not realizing that on the legal sub team call, we discussed having the lawyers ready the document in anticipation of a Friday call (our Friday). Even that would be a short turn-around, but not short enough for a call that's really happening on Thursday. > > In any event, I am going to circulate to the main list a copy of the second draft that counsel is reviewing, so people know what is happening, and know not to refer to the first draft. > > Greg > > > On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 12:31 AM, Jordan Carter <jordan(a)internetnz.net.nz <mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz>> wrote: > Hi there - if it's four or so hours that is still OK. But aside from that, too late, and we won't ask people to read it as a late paper. > > I'd like to emphasise that that's OK - the input is primarily for a debate that the CCWG as a whole is having, and so this work will be a very useful tool for that. > > thanks, > Jordan > > > On 16 April 2015 at 16:27, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe(a)sanchez.mx <mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>> wrote: > Thank you Rosemary, > > Here’s a link to a tool that might prove to be useful while converting into UTC http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/converted.html?iso=20150416T07&p1=0&p… <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.timeanddate.com_wor…> > > And yes, that is in less than three hours. > > Jordan, can you confirme Counsel won’t be required in the call? > > > Best regards, > > > León > >> El 15/04/2015, a las 23:20, List for the work of CCWG-Accountability Legal SubTeam <ccwg-accountability5(a)icann.org <mailto:ccwg-accountability5@icann.org>> escribió: >> >> León and Jordan: >> >> I’m new to converting from UTC, but I believe the deadline (0700 UTC) is in less than three hours. If that’s correct, then no, legal counsel cannot have our comments to Robin’s chart ready by then. >> >> Rosemary >> >> From: ccwg-accountability5-bounces(a)icann.org <mailto:ccwg-accountability5-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:ccwg-accountability5-bounces@icann.org <mailto:ccwg-accountability5-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of List for the work of CCWG-Accountability Legal SubTeam >> Sent: Wednesday, April 15, 2015 9:04 PM >> To: Jordan Carter >> Cc: ACCT-Staff; ccwg-accountability5(a)icann.org <mailto:ccwg-accountability5@icann.org>; Accountability Cross Community >> Subject: Re: [Acct-Legal] [CCWG-ACCT] community powers comparison: designator & membership model - what powers can we create and how to enforce them? >> >> Thanks for the quick return Jordan. >> >> Counsel, is Jordan’s message clear? >> >> Your attendance would be needed on WP1 call only if the document is ready under the stated times. >> >> Would this timeline be able to be met? >> >> >> Best regards, >> >> >> León >> >> El 15/04/2015, a las 22:10, Jordan Carter <jordan(a)internetnz.net.nz <mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz>> escribió: >> >> Hi folks >> >> If the lawyers are on track to finish adding their material / views to the table that Robin proposed and are ready to circulate that to me and everyone else by 0700 UTC on Thursday, then yes, I would like to invite them to be the first item on the call, from 1900 to 1920 on the call on Thursday (UTC). >> >> Otherwise, no counsel are required. >> >> We won't deal with any material that can't reach the 12h deadline, unless it's like 11h or 10h. >> >> So - please advise ASAP the timeline. >> >> IN terms of what we have to do on that call, introducing this material will be helpful, but we don't need to make decisions on it. That's why it is a 20 mins slot at the start of the call - we do have to finish the rest. >> >> >> thanks, >> Jordan >> >> >> On 16 April 2015 at 13:08, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe(a)sanchez.mx <mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>> wrote: >> Dear Jordan, >> >> Could you please confirm whether you will be needing the lawyers to attend your call on Friday? >> >> Staff, if Jordan does confirm the need to invite the lawyers, could you please make sure they get the invitations with the call details? >> >> >> Best regards, >> >> >> León >> >> El 15/04/2015, a las 19:56, List for the work of CCWG-Accountability Legal SubTeam <ccwg-accountability5(a)icann.org <mailto:ccwg-accountability5@icann.org>> escribió: >> >> Dear Leon and Jordan, >> >> Could you please let us know if outside counsel is being asked to join the WP1 call on Friday referenced below, and if so, could you let us know the time of the call and arrange for an invitation to be sent to us? >> >> Thanks, >> >> TYLER HILTON >> Associate >> >> Sidley Austin LLP >> +1.213.896.6130 <tel:%2B1.213.896.6130> >> >> thilton(a)sidley.com <mailto:thilton@sidley.com> >> >> >> From: ccwg-accountability5-bounces(a)icann.org <mailto:ccwg-accountability5-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:ccwg-accountability5-bounces@icann.org <mailto:ccwg-accountability5-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of List for the work of CCWG-Accountability Legal SubTeam >> Sent: Wednesday, April 15, 2015 4:01 AM >> To: ccwg-accountability5(a)icann.org <mailto:ccwg-accountability5@icann.org>; Jordan Carter >> Cc: ccwg-accountability5(a)icann.org <mailto:ccwg-accountability5@icann.org>; Accountability Cross Community >> Subject: Re: [Acct-Legal] [CCWG-ACCT] community powers comparison: designator & membership model - what powers can we create and how to enforce them? >> >> Dear Leon and Jordan, We should be able to have this ready within the next day or so and definitely prior to Friday's call. Kind regards, Holly. >> >> >> >> Sent with Good (www.good.com <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.good.com_&d=AwMFaQ&…>) >> >> From: ccwg-accountability5-bounces(a)icann.org <mailto:ccwg-accountability5-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of List for the work of CCWG-Accountability Legal SubTeam >> Sent: Wednesday, April 15, 2015 12:32:18 AM >> To: Jordan Carter >> Cc: ccwg-accountability5(a)icann.org <mailto:ccwg-accountability5@icann.org>; Accountability Cross Community >> Subject: Re: [Acct-Legal] [CCWG-ACCT] community powers comparison: designator & membership model - what powers can we create and how to enforce them? >> >> Dear Holly and Rosemary, >> >> Would Jordan’s request be possible? >> >> >> Best regards, >> >> >> León >> >> El 15/04/2015, a las 0:26, Jordan Carter <jordan(a)internetnz.net.nz <mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz>> escribió: >> >> I know this is bold, but is there any chance a reviewed copy might be available for discussion in WP1 on Friday? >> >> Many thanks >> Jordan >> >> On 15 April 2015 at 17:00, List for the work of CCWG-Accountability Legal SubTeam <ccwg-accountability5(a)icann.org <mailto:ccwg-accountability5@icann.org>> wrote: >> Dear Holly and Rosemary, >> >> >> Please do review Robin’s table. I apologize for the delay on assignment and don’t expect you to have elaborated for our call tomorrow but rather give an initial review so we can further discuss in our call tomorrow. >> >> >> Best regards, >> >> >> León >> >> El 14/04/2015, a las 16:42, List for the work of CCWG-Accountability Legal SubTeam <ccwg-accountability5(a)icann.org <mailto:ccwg-accountability5@icann.org>> escribió: >> >> Happy to review with direction from Legal Subteam. Please provide direction ASAP. Holly >> >> >> >> Sent with Good (www.good.com <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.good.com_&d=AwMF-g&…>) >> >> From: ccwg-accountability5-bounces(a)icann.org <mailto:ccwg-accountability5-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of List for the work of CCWG-Accountability Legal SubTeam >> Sent: Tuesday, April 14, 2015 03:45:49 PM >> To: ccwg-accountability5(a)icann.org <mailto:ccwg-accountability5@icann.org> >> Cc: Accountability Cross Community >> Subject: Re: [Acct-Legal] [CCWG-ACCT] community powers comparison: designator & membership model - what powers can we create and how to enforce them? >> >> Fantastic work Robin and much appreciated! >> >> I echo Greg's comments concerning the role of litigation in both models. I do like the format and I think it would be a great idea to have it reviewed and improved upon, if necessary, by counsel, for distribution to the general list. >> >> Best, >> >> Ed >> >> >> On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 8:19 PM, List for the work of CCWG-Accountability Legal SubTeam <ccwg-accountability5(a)icann.org <mailto:ccwg-accountability5@icann.org>> wrote: >> Robin, >> >> Thank you for this. A great deal of effort clearly went into this and this should develop into a very useful tool. However, I think we will need to have this reviewed by legal counsel before we rely on it. Having reviewed this briefly, I am uncertain that at this stage this document accurately captures the legal advice, particularly with regard to how the rights can be enforced. >> >> Specifically, this seems to give the impression that, if the membership model were chosen, the members would be limited to running off to court in most cases should rights need to be enforced. I'm fairly confident that is not the case. I believe that the remedies listed for the designator model, particularly changes to the bylaws and the IRP, are equally available in the member model. With regard to litigation, I think the distinction is that the designators have no ability to litigate on behalf of the corporation, while this is one possibility (but far from the only one) available to members. In other words, such litigation is an extra power, not the only power, available to members. >> >> The Legal Sub Team (copied here) should discuss how to proceed. >> >> Thank you again for taking the laboring oar in pulling this together! >> >> Best regards, >> >> Greg >> >> On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 2:35 PM, Robin Gross <robin(a)ipjustice.org <mailto:robin@ipjustice.org>> wrote: >> Hello Team, >> >> What we need to do is take a hard look at both the membership model and the designator model and understand what rights can be created and how will they be enforced. Once we understand what we *can* do, we need to look at the pros/cons of the different models and evaluate accordingly. >> >> But first, we need to understand what *can* be done so we can discuss *if* we ought to do it and what is the best means. >> >> So I've taken a first pass of each of the 6 community empowerment goals and created a comparison table to lay-out what rights can be created and how they can be enforced. I've combed through all the 200+ pages of legal memos, today's CCWG call, and calls of the legal sub-team to compile this info into one table so the models can begin to be evaluated side-by-side. >> >> The doc is attached and also here is a link to the table comparing the 2 models: >> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1kkkRBpMUkTpD5_RP_Ogo1PTGzGt2kC6f1xo… <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_spread…> >> >> I am hopeful it can begin to help us to wrap our minds around what our goals are and how they could be accomplished by the two models at play. >> >> Thanks, >> Robin >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list >> Accountability-Cross-Community(a)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_l…> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Ccwg-accountability5 mailing list >> Ccwg-accountability5(a)icann.org <mailto:Ccwg-accountability5@icann.org> >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-accountability5 <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_l…> >> >> >> >> **************************************************************************************************** >> 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. >> >> **************************************************************************************************** >> _______________________________________________ >> Ccwg-accountability5 mailing list >> Ccwg-accountability5(a)icann.org <mailto:Ccwg-accountability5@icann.org> >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-accountability5 <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_l…> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Ccwg-accountability5 mailing list >> Ccwg-accountability5(a)icann.org <mailto:Ccwg-accountability5@icann.org> >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-accountability5 <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_l…> >> >> >> >> -- >> Jordan Carter >> >> Chief Executive >> InternetNZ >> >> 04 495 2118 <tel:04%20495%202118> (office) | +64 21 442 649 <tel:%2B64%2021%20442%20649> (mob) >> jordan(a)internetnz.net.nz <mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz> >> Skype: jordancarter >> >> A better world through a better Internet >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list >> Accountability-Cross-Community(a)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_l…> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Ccwg-accountability5 mailing list >> Ccwg-accountability5(a)icann.org <mailto:Ccwg-accountability5@icann.org> >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-accountability5 <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_l…> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> Jordan Carter >> >> Chief Executive >> InternetNZ >> >> 04 495 2118 <tel:04%20495%202118> (office) | +64 21 442 649 <tel:%2B64%2021%20442%20649> (mob) >> jordan(a)internetnz.net.nz <mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz> >> Skype: jordancarter >> >> A better world through a better Internet >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Ccwg-accountability5 mailing list >> Ccwg-accountability5(a)icann.org <mailto:Ccwg-accountability5@icann.org> >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-accountability5 <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_l…> > > > > -- > Jordan Carter > > Chief Executive > InternetNZ > > 04 495 2118 (office) | +64 21 442 649 <tel:%2B64%2021%20442%20649> (mob) > jordan(a)internetnz.net.nz <mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz> > Skype: jordancarter > > A better world through a better Internet > > > _______________________________________________ > Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list > Accountability-Cross-Community(a)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_l…> > > > _______________________________________________ > Ccwg-accountability5 mailing list > Ccwg-accountability5(a)icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-accountability5

1 0

Re: [CCWG-ACCT] [Acct-Legal] community powers comparison: designator & membership model - what powers can we create and how to enforce them?
by León Felipe Sánchez Ambía April 16, 2015

April 16, 2015

Thank you Rosemary, Here’s a link to a tool that might prove to be useful while converting into UTC http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/converted.html?iso=20150416T07&p1=0&p… <http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/converted.html?iso=20150416T07&p1=0&p…> And yes, that is in less than three hours. Jordan, can you confirme Counsel won’t be required in the call? Best regards, León > El 15/04/2015, a las 23:20, List for the work of CCWG-Accountability Legal SubTeam <ccwg-accountability5(a)icann.org> escribió: > > León and Jordan: > > I’m new to converting from UTC, but I believe the deadline (0700 UTC) is in less than three hours. If that’s correct, then no, legal counsel cannot have our comments to Robin’s chart ready by then. > > Rosemary > > From: ccwg-accountability5-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto:ccwg-accountability5-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of List for the work of CCWG-Accountability Legal SubTeam > Sent: Wednesday, April 15, 2015 9:04 PM > To: Jordan Carter > Cc: ACCT-Staff; ccwg-accountability5(a)icann.org; Accountability Cross Community > Subject: Re: [Acct-Legal] [CCWG-ACCT] community powers comparison: designator & membership model - what powers can we create and how to enforce them? > > Thanks for the quick return Jordan. > > Counsel, is Jordan’s message clear? > > Your attendance would be needed on WP1 call only if the document is ready under the stated times. > > Would this timeline be able to be met? > > > Best regards, > > > León > > El 15/04/2015, a las 22:10, Jordan Carter <jordan(a)internetnz.net.nz <mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz>> escribió: > > Hi folks > > If the lawyers are on track to finish adding their material / views to the table that Robin proposed and are ready to circulate that to me and everyone else by 0700 UTC on Thursday, then yes, I would like to invite them to be the first item on the call, from 1900 to 1920 on the call on Thursday (UTC). > > Otherwise, no counsel are required. > > We won't deal with any material that can't reach the 12h deadline, unless it's like 11h or 10h. > > So - please advise ASAP the timeline. > > IN terms of what we have to do on that call, introducing this material will be helpful, but we don't need to make decisions on it. That's why it is a 20 mins slot at the start of the call - we do have to finish the rest. > > > thanks, > Jordan > > > On 16 April 2015 at 13:08, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe(a)sanchez.mx <mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>> wrote: > Dear Jordan, > > Could you please confirm whether you will be needing the lawyers to attend your call on Friday? > > Staff, if Jordan does confirm the need to invite the lawyers, could you please make sure they get the invitations with the call details? > > > Best regards, > > > León > > El 15/04/2015, a las 19:56, List for the work of CCWG-Accountability Legal SubTeam <ccwg-accountability5(a)icann.org <mailto:ccwg-accountability5@icann.org>> escribió: > > Dear Leon and Jordan, > > Could you please let us know if outside counsel is being asked to join the WP1 call on Friday referenced below, and if so, could you let us know the time of the call and arrange for an invitation to be sent to us? > > Thanks, > > TYLER HILTON > Associate > > Sidley Austin LLP > +1.213.896.6130 <tel:%2B1.213.896.6130> > > thilton(a)sidley.com <mailto:thilton@sidley.com> > > > From: ccwg-accountability5-bounces(a)icann.org <mailto:ccwg-accountability5-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:ccwg-accountability5-bounces@icann.org <mailto:ccwg-accountability5-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of List for the work of CCWG-Accountability Legal SubTeam > Sent: Wednesday, April 15, 2015 4:01 AM > To: ccwg-accountability5(a)icann.org <mailto:ccwg-accountability5@icann.org>; Jordan Carter > Cc: ccwg-accountability5(a)icann.org <mailto:ccwg-accountability5@icann.org>; Accountability Cross Community > Subject: Re: [Acct-Legal] [CCWG-ACCT] community powers comparison: designator & membership model - what powers can we create and how to enforce them? > > Dear Leon and Jordan, We should be able to have this ready within the next day or so and definitely prior to Friday's call. Kind regards, Holly. > > > > Sent with Good (www.good.com <http://www.good.com/>) > > From: ccwg-accountability5-bounces(a)icann.org <mailto:ccwg-accountability5-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of List for the work of CCWG-Accountability Legal SubTeam > Sent: Wednesday, April 15, 2015 12:32:18 AM > To: Jordan Carter > Cc: ccwg-accountability5(a)icann.org <mailto:ccwg-accountability5@icann.org>; Accountability Cross Community > Subject: Re: [Acct-Legal] [CCWG-ACCT] community powers comparison: designator & membership model - what powers can we create and how to enforce them? > > Dear Holly and Rosemary, > > Would Jordan’s request be possible? > > > Best regards, > > > León > > El 15/04/2015, a las 0:26, Jordan Carter <jordan(a)internetnz.net.nz <mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz>> escribió: > > I know this is bold, but is there any chance a reviewed copy might be available for discussion in WP1 on Friday? > > Many thanks > Jordan > > On 15 April 2015 at 17:00, List for the work of CCWG-Accountability Legal SubTeam <ccwg-accountability5(a)icann.org <mailto:ccwg-accountability5@icann.org>> wrote: > Dear Holly and Rosemary, > > > Please do review Robin’s table. I apologize for the delay on assignment and don’t expect you to have elaborated for our call tomorrow but rather give an initial review so we can further discuss in our call tomorrow. > > > Best regards, > > > León > > El 14/04/2015, a las 16:42, List for the work of CCWG-Accountability Legal SubTeam <ccwg-accountability5(a)icann.org <mailto:ccwg-accountability5@icann.org>> escribió: > > Happy to review with direction from Legal Subteam. Please provide direction ASAP. Holly > > > > Sent with Good (www.good.com <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.good.com_&d=AwMF-g&…>) > > From: ccwg-accountability5-bounces(a)icann.org <mailto:ccwg-accountability5-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of List for the work of CCWG-Accountability Legal SubTeam > Sent: Tuesday, April 14, 2015 03:45:49 PM > To: ccwg-accountability5(a)icann.org <mailto:ccwg-accountability5@icann.org> > Cc: Accountability Cross Community > Subject: Re: [Acct-Legal] [CCWG-ACCT] community powers comparison: designator & membership model - what powers can we create and how to enforce them? > > Fantastic work Robin and much appreciated! > > I echo Greg's comments concerning the role of litigation in both models. I do like the format and I think it would be a great idea to have it reviewed and improved upon, if necessary, by counsel, for distribution to the general list. > > Best, > > Ed > > > On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 8:19 PM, List for the work of CCWG-Accountability Legal SubTeam <ccwg-accountability5(a)icann.org <mailto:ccwg-accountability5@icann.org>> wrote: > Robin, > > Thank you for this. A great deal of effort clearly went into this and this should develop into a very useful tool. However, I think we will need to have this reviewed by legal counsel before we rely on it. Having reviewed this briefly, I am uncertain that at this stage this document accurately captures the legal advice, particularly with regard to how the rights can be enforced. > > Specifically, this seems to give the impression that, if the membership model were chosen, the members would be limited to running off to court in most cases should rights need to be enforced. I'm fairly confident that is not the case. I believe that the remedies listed for the designator model, particularly changes to the bylaws and the IRP, are equally available in the member model. With regard to litigation, I think the distinction is that the designators have no ability to litigate on behalf of the corporation, while this is one possibility (but far from the only one) available to members. In other words, such litigation is an extra power, not the only power, available to members. > > The Legal Sub Team (copied here) should discuss how to proceed. > > Thank you again for taking the laboring oar in pulling this together! > > Best regards, > > Greg > > On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 2:35 PM, Robin Gross <robin(a)ipjustice.org <mailto:robin@ipjustice.org>> wrote: > Hello Team, > > What we need to do is take a hard look at both the membership model and the designator model and understand what rights can be created and how will they be enforced. Once we understand what we *can* do, we need to look at the pros/cons of the different models and evaluate accordingly. > > But first, we need to understand what *can* be done so we can discuss *if* we ought to do it and what is the best means. > > So I've taken a first pass of each of the 6 community empowerment goals and created a comparison table to lay-out what rights can be created and how they can be enforced. I've combed through all the 200+ pages of legal memos, today's CCWG call, and calls of the legal sub-team to compile this info into one table so the models can begin to be evaluated side-by-side. > > The doc is attached and also here is a link to the table comparing the 2 models: > https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1kkkRBpMUkTpD5_RP_Ogo1PTGzGt2kC6f1xo… <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_spread…> > > I am hopeful it can begin to help us to wrap our minds around what our goals are and how they could be accomplished by the two models at play. > > Thanks, > Robin > > > > _______________________________________________ > Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list > Accountability-Cross-Community(a)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_l…> > > > _______________________________________________ > Ccwg-accountability5 mailing list > Ccwg-accountability5(a)icann.org <mailto:Ccwg-accountability5@icann.org> > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-accountability5 <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_l…> > > > > **************************************************************************************************** > 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. > > **************************************************************************************************** > _______________________________________________ > Ccwg-accountability5 mailing list > Ccwg-accountability5(a)icann.org <mailto:Ccwg-accountability5@icann.org> > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-accountability5 <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_l…> > > > _______________________________________________ > Ccwg-accountability5 mailing list > Ccwg-accountability5(a)icann.org <mailto:Ccwg-accountability5@icann.org> > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-accountability5 <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_l…> > > > > -- > Jordan Carter > > Chief Executive > InternetNZ > > 04 495 2118 <tel:04%20495%202118> (office) | +64 21 442 649 <tel:%2B64%2021%20442%20649> (mob) > jordan(a)internetnz.net.nz <mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz> > Skype: jordancarter > > A better world through a better Internet > > _______________________________________________ > Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list > Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community> > > _______________________________________________ > Ccwg-accountability5 mailing list > Ccwg-accountability5(a)icann.org <mailto:Ccwg-accountability5@icann.org> > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-accountability5 <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-accountability5> > > > > > -- > Jordan Carter > > Chief Executive > InternetNZ > > 04 495 2118 (office) | +64 21 442 649 (mob) > jordan(a)internetnz.net.nz <mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz> > Skype: jordancarter > > A better world through a better Internet > > > _______________________________________________ > Ccwg-accountability5 mailing list > Ccwg-accountability5(a)icann.org <mailto:Ccwg-accountability5@icann.org> > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-accountability5 <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-accountability5>

3 3

Re: [CCWG-ACCT] [Acct-Legal] community powers comparison: designator & membership model - what powers can we create and how to enforce them?
by León Felipe Sánchez Ambía April 16, 2015

April 16, 2015

Dear Jordan, Could you please confirm whether you will be needing the lawyers to attend your call on Friday? Staff, if Jordan does confirm the need to invite the lawyers, could you please make sure they get the invitations with the call details? Best regards, León > El 15/04/2015, a las 19:56, List for the work of CCWG-Accountability Legal SubTeam <ccwg-accountability5(a)icann.org> escribió: > > Dear Leon and Jordan, > > Could you please let us know if outside counsel is being asked to join the WP1 call on Friday referenced below, and if so, could you let us know the time of the call and arrange for an invitation to be sent to us? > > Thanks, > > TYLER HILTON > Associate > > Sidley Austin LLP > +1.213.896.6130 > > thilton(a)sidley.com <mailto:thilton@sidley.com> > > > From: ccwg-accountability5-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto:ccwg-accountability5-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of List for the work of CCWG-Accountability Legal SubTeam > Sent: Wednesday, April 15, 2015 4:01 AM > To: ccwg-accountability5(a)icann.org; Jordan Carter > Cc: ccwg-accountability5(a)icann.org; Accountability Cross Community > Subject: Re: [Acct-Legal] [CCWG-ACCT] community powers comparison: designator & membership model - what powers can we create and how to enforce them? > > Dear Leon and Jordan, We should be able to have this ready within the next day or so and definitely prior to Friday's call. Kind regards, Holly. > > > > Sent with Good (www.good.com <http://www.good.com/>) > > From: ccwg-accountability5-bounces(a)icann.org <mailto:ccwg-accountability5-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of List for the work of CCWG-Accountability Legal SubTeam > Sent: Wednesday, April 15, 2015 12:32:18 AM > To: Jordan Carter > Cc: ccwg-accountability5(a)icann.org <mailto:ccwg-accountability5@icann.org>; Accountability Cross Community > Subject: Re: [Acct-Legal] [CCWG-ACCT] community powers comparison: designator & membership model - what powers can we create and how to enforce them? > > Dear Holly and Rosemary, > > Would Jordan’s request be possible? > > > Best regards, > > > León > > El 15/04/2015, a las 0:26, Jordan Carter <jordan(a)internetnz.net.nz <mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz>> escribió: > > I know this is bold, but is there any chance a reviewed copy might be available for discussion in WP1 on Friday? > > Many thanks > Jordan > > On 15 April 2015 at 17:00, List for the work of CCWG-Accountability Legal SubTeam <ccwg-accountability5(a)icann.org <mailto:ccwg-accountability5@icann.org>> wrote: > Dear Holly and Rosemary, > > > Please do review Robin’s table. I apologize for the delay on assignment and don’t expect you to have elaborated for our call tomorrow but rather give an initial review so we can further discuss in our call tomorrow. > > > Best regards, > > > León > > El 14/04/2015, a las 16:42, List for the work of CCWG-Accountability Legal SubTeam <ccwg-accountability5(a)icann.org <mailto:ccwg-accountability5@icann.org>> escribió: > > Happy to review with direction from Legal Subteam. Please provide direction ASAP. Holly > > > > Sent with Good (www.good.com <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.good.com_&d=AwMF-g&…>) > > From: ccwg-accountability5-bounces(a)icann.org <mailto:ccwg-accountability5-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of List for the work of CCWG-Accountability Legal SubTeam > Sent: Tuesday, April 14, 2015 03:45:49 PM > To: ccwg-accountability5(a)icann.org <mailto:ccwg-accountability5@icann.org> > Cc: Accountability Cross Community > Subject: Re: [Acct-Legal] [CCWG-ACCT] community powers comparison: designator & membership model - what powers can we create and how to enforce them? > > Fantastic work Robin and much appreciated! > > I echo Greg's comments concerning the role of litigation in both models. I do like the format and I think it would be a great idea to have it reviewed and improved upon, if necessary, by counsel, for distribution to the general list. > > Best, > > Ed > > > On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 8:19 PM, List for the work of CCWG-Accountability Legal SubTeam <ccwg-accountability5(a)icann.org <mailto:ccwg-accountability5@icann.org>> wrote: > Robin, > > Thank you for this. A great deal of effort clearly went into this and this should develop into a very useful tool. However, I think we will need to have this reviewed by legal counsel before we rely on it. Having reviewed this briefly, I am uncertain that at this stage this document accurately captures the legal advice, particularly with regard to how the rights can be enforced. > > Specifically, this seems to give the impression that, if the membership model were chosen, the members would be limited to running off to court in most cases should rights need to be enforced. I'm fairly confident that is not the case. I believe that the remedies listed for the designator model, particularly changes to the bylaws and the IRP, are equally available in the member model. With regard to litigation, I think the distinction is that the designators have no ability to litigate on behalf of the corporation, while this is one possibility (but far from the only one) available to members. In other words, such litigation is an extra power, not the only power, available to members. > > The Legal Sub Team (copied here) should discuss how to proceed. > > Thank you again for taking the laboring oar in pulling this together! > > Best regards, > > Greg > > On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 2:35 PM, Robin Gross <robin(a)ipjustice.org <mailto:robin@ipjustice.org>> wrote: > Hello Team, > > What we need to do is take a hard look at both the membership model and the designator model and understand what rights can be created and how will they be enforced. Once we understand what we *can* do, we need to look at the pros/cons of the different models and evaluate accordingly. > > But first, we need to understand what *can* be done so we can discuss *if* we ought to do it and what is the best means. > > So I've taken a first pass of each of the 6 community empowerment goals and created a comparison table to lay-out what rights can be created and how they can be enforced. I've combed through all the 200+ pages of legal memos, today's CCWG call, and calls of the legal sub-team to compile this info into one table so the models can begin to be evaluated side-by-side. > > The doc is attached and also here is a link to the table comparing the 2 models: > https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1kkkRBpMUkTpD5_RP_Ogo1PTGzGt2kC6f1xo… <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_spread…> > > I am hopeful it can begin to help us to wrap our minds around what our goals are and how they could be accomplished by the two models at play. > > Thanks, > Robin > > > > _______________________________________________ > Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list > Accountability-Cross-Community(a)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_l…> > > > _______________________________________________ > Ccwg-accountability5 mailing list > Ccwg-accountability5(a)icann.org <mailto:Ccwg-accountability5@icann.org> > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-accountability5 <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_l…> > > > > **************************************************************************************************** > 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. > > **************************************************************************************************** > _______________________________________________ > Ccwg-accountability5 mailing list > Ccwg-accountability5(a)icann.org <mailto:Ccwg-accountability5@icann.org> > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-accountability5 <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_l…> > > > _______________________________________________ > Ccwg-accountability5 mailing list > Ccwg-accountability5(a)icann.org <mailto:Ccwg-accountability5@icann.org> > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-accountability5 <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_l…> > > > > -- > Jordan Carter > > Chief Executive > InternetNZ > > 04 495 2118 (office) | +64 21 442 649 (mob) > jordan(a)internetnz.net.nz <mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz> > Skype: jordancarter > > A better world through a better Internet > > _______________________________________________ > Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list > Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community> > > _______________________________________________ > Ccwg-accountability5 mailing list > Ccwg-accountability5(a)icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-accountability5

2 2