July 2015 - Accountability-Cross-Community

Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Who is managing the lawyers and what have they beenasked to do?
by Greg Shatan July 8, 2015

July 8, 2015

Chris, That was tried to some extent, at least in the CWG. There are several substantial problems with that approach. First, lawyers are not fungible. The particular legal skills, background and experience required for the issues before both WGs are fairly specific, and in some cases, very specific. The primary core competency needed here is corporate governance. While a number of lawyers in the community have a reasonable working knowledge of the area, at least in their home jurisdictions, I don't believe there are any who would say that this is their primary focus and expertise -- at least none who identified themselves to either WG. The second core competency required, especially in the CCWG, is non-profit law. Again there are a number of lawyers with a decent working knowledge of this fairly broad field, but not as a primary focus. There may be a couple of lawyers in the community who would claim this fairly broad field as a primary focus and expertise -- but none who became involved with either WG. This then becomes further narrowed by jurisdiction. Since ICANN is a California non-profit corporation, US corporate governance and non-profit experience is more relevant than experience from other jurisdictions, and California law corporate governance and non-profit experience is more relevant than that from other US jurisdictions. In my experience, the more a US lawyer focuses on a particular substantive area, the greater their knowledge of and comfort with state law issues in US state jurisdictions other than their own (e.g., someone who spend a majority of their time working in corporate governance will have a greater knowledge of the law, issues, approaches and trends outside their primary state of practice, while someone who spends a relatively small amount of time in the area will tend to feel less comfortable outside their home jurisdiction). (An exception is that many US lawyers have specific knowledge of certain Delaware corporate law issues, because Delaware often serves as the state of incorporation for entities operating elsewhere.) Second, lawyers in the community will seldom be seen as neutral advisors, no matter how hard they try. They will tend to be seen as working from their point of view or stakeholder group or "special interest" or desired outcome, even if they are trying to be even-handed. Over the course of time, this balancing act would tend to become more untenable. Third, the amount of time it would take to provide truly definitive legal advice (research, careful drafting, discussions with relevant "clients", etc.) would be prohibitive, even compared to the substantial amount of time it takes to provide reasonably well-informed and competent legal-based viewpoints in the course of either WG's work. Fourth, in order to formally counsel the community, the lawyer or lawyers in question would have to enter into a formal attorney-client relationship. Under US law, an attorney-client relationship may inadvertently be created by the attorney's actions, so attorneys try to be careful about not providing formal legal advice without a formal engagement (sometimes providing an explicit "caveat" if they feel they might be getting too close to providing legal advice). If the attorney is employed by a corporation, they would likely be unable to take on such a representation due to the terms of their employment, and that is before getting to an exploration of conflict of interest issues. If the attorney is employed by a firm, the firm would have to sign off on the representation, again dealing with potential conflict issues. Fifth, even if the above issues were all somehow resolved, it would be highly unlikely that any such attorney would provide substantial amounts of advice, written memos, counseling, etc. on a pro bono (unpaid) basis, especially given the time-consuming nature of the work. Pro bono advice and representation is generally accorded to individuals and entities that could not otherwise be able to pay for it. That is clearly not the case here, at least with ICANN taking financial responsibility. It would likely be very difficult to justify this to, e.g., a firm's pro bono committee, as a valid pro bono representation. Sixth, if ICANN were not taking the role they are taking, it would be extremely difficult to identify the "client" in this situation. The "community" is a collection of sectors, mostly represented by various ICANN-created structures, which in turn have members of widely varying types (individuals, corporations, sovereigns, non-profits, IGOs, partnerships, etc.). This would also make it extremely difficult to enter into a formal counseling relationship with the "community." Seventh, this is a sensitive, high-profile, transformative set of actions we are involved in, which is subject to an extraordinary amount of scrutiny, not least that of the NTIA and the US Congress. That eliminates any possibility of providing informal, off-the-cuff, reasonably well-informed but not quite expert, "non-advice" advice -- which might happen in a more obscure exercise. There's simply too much at stake. Finally, I would say that a number of attorneys involved in one or both of the WGs are in fact providing a significant amount of legal knowledge and experience to the WGs, helping to frame issues, whether in terms of general leadership (e.g., Thomas, Leon, Becky) or more specifically in a "lawyer-as-client" capacity -- working with outside counsel, tackling the more legalistic issues, providing as much legal background and knowledge as possible without providing the type of formal legal advice that would tend to create an attorney-client relationship, etc. So I do think that many lawyers in the community are giving greatly of themselves in this process, even though they cannot and would not be able to formally be engaged by the community as its "counsel of record." In sum, it might be a nice thought in theory, but it is no way a practical possibility. Greg On Sat, Jul 4, 2015 at 3:08 AM, CW Lists <lists(a)christopherwilkinson.eu> wrote: > Good morning: > > I had decided not to enter this debate. But I am bound to say that the > thought had occurred to me at the time, that there were more than enough > qualified lawyers in this community that they could perfectly well have > counselled … themselves. > > CW > > On 04 Jul 2015, at 08:41, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Wolfgang, > > To your first point, the billing rates were clearly stated in the law > firms' engagement letters. > > To your second point, I'm sure we could all think of other projects and > goals where the money could have been "better spent." You've stated > yours. But that is not the proper test. This was and continues to be > money we need to spend to achieve the goals we have set. Under different > circumstances, perhaps it would be a different amount (or maybe none at > all). But it was strongly felt at the outset that the group needed to have > independent counsel. Clearly that counsel needed to have recognized > expertise in the appropriate legal areas. As such, I believe we made > excellent choices and have been very well represented. > > As to your "better spent" test, I just had to have $4000.00 worth of > emergency dental work done. This money definitely could have been "better > spent" on a nice vacation, redecorating our living room or on donations to > my favored charitable causes. But I had no choice, other than to choose > which dentist and endodontist I went to, and I wasn't going to cut corners > -- the dental work was a necessity. Similarly, the legal work we are > getting is a necessity and whether we would have preferred to spend the > money elsewhere is not merely irrelevant, it is an incorrect and > inappropriate proposition. Many of us are investing vast quantities of > time that could be "better spent" elsewhere as well, but we are willing > (grudgingly sometimes) to spend the time it takes to get it right, because > we believe it needs to be done. This is the appropriate measure, whether > it comes to our time or counsels' time. If we believe in this project, we > have to invest in it, and do what it takes to succeed. > > Of course, this investment has to be managed wisely and cost-effectively, > and by and large, I believe the CCWG has done that reasonably well -- not > perfectly, but reasonably well and with "course corrections" along the way > intended to improve that management. It's certainly fair to ask, as Robin > has done, for a better understanding of that management as we go along. > But asserting that the money could have been "better spent" elsewhere sets > up a false test that we should not use to evaluate this important aspect of > our work. Instead, we need to focus on whether the money was "well spent" > on these critical legal services. If you have reason to believe it was not, > that could be useful to know. That would at least be the right discussion > to have. > > Greg > > On Sat, Jul 4, 2015 at 1:13 AM, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" < > wolfgang.kleinwaechter(a)medienkomm.uni-halle.de> wrote: > >> HI, >> >> and please if you ask outside lawyers, ask for the price tag in advance. >> Some of the money spend fo lawyers could have been spend better to suppport >> and enable Internet user and non-commercial groups in developing countries. >> >> >> Wolfgang >> >> >> >> >> >> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- >> Von: accountability-cross-community-bounces(a)icann.org im Auftrag von >> Robin Gross >> Gesendet: Fr 03.07.2015 14:57 >> An: accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org Community >> Betreff: [CCWG-ACCT] Who is managing the lawyers and what have they >> beenasked to do? >> >> After the legal sub-team was disbanded, I haven't been able to follow >> what communications are happening with CCWG and the independent lawyers we >> retained. >> >> I understand the lawyers are currently "working on the various models" >> and will present something to us regarding that work soon. However, *what >> exactly* have the lawyers been asked to do and *who* asked them? If there >> are written instructions, may the group please see them? Who is now taking >> on the role of managing the outside attorneys for this group, including >> providing instructions and certifying legal work? >> >> Sorry, but I'm really trying to understand what is happening, and there >> doesn't seem to be much information in the public on this (or if there is, >> I can't find it). Thanks for any information anyone can provide. >> >> Best, >> Robin >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list >> Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community >> > > _______________________________________________ > Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list > Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community > > >

21 41

House Subcommittee Hearing Tomorrow
by Greg Shatan July 8, 2015

July 8, 2015

Hearing on "Internet Governance Progress After ICANN 53," Subcommittee on Communications and Technology This hearing is taking place at 10 am EDT tomorrow. So far, the only witnesses listed are Larry Strickling and Fadi Chehade. Their written statements can be found here: http://democrats.energycommerce.house.gov/?q=hearing/hearing-on-internet-go… along with statement from Democratic ranking member Pallone. Their statements can also be found here, along with a background memo prepared by the Committee Majority Staff. http://energycommerce.house.gov/hearing/internet-governance-progress-after-…. I expect that webcast info will appear here as well. Greg

3 3

Notes-Recordings-Transcript links for STRESS TESTS #9 - 8 July
by Brenda Brewer July 8, 2015

July 8, 2015

Hello all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for the CCWG Accountability STRESS TESTS Meeting #9 - 8 July will be available here: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=53782461 A copy of the notes and action items may be found below. Thank you. Kind regards, Brenda Action Items ACTION ITEM - Steve to translate Role of Courts identified stress tests into table format ACTION ITEM: Draft two enforcement of contract provisions stress tests ACTION ITEM - Sam to send draft language on inclusiveness point. ACTION ITEM - Share stress tests analysis for 23 with list. Notes These high-level notes are designed to help you navigate through content of the call and do not substitute in any way the transcript. We will be discussing the update to stress testing and the document Malcolm Hutty prepared. Update to stress test . Role of courts: Work to be done: convert these two stress tests into our table format. To apply our tests we have to understand what degree of enforceability the final reference model has. And when that is know we will revisit the tests under the conditions of the new model. ACTION ITEM - Steve to translate Role of Courts identified stress tests into table format Corruption: no additional work needed. Capture by insiders: Will leave this as it is. WP3 may address this. Enforcement of contract provisions that exceed limited mission of ICANN: what investigate and respond to mean remains to be determined. ACTION ITEM: Draft two enforcement of contract provisions stress tests Member/Designator Representatives fail to honor voting instructions from their AC/SO: do we still need to keep this stress test? Suggestion to add a fourth paragraph to suggest that in addition to informing community that vote is invalid, there would be possible step of replacing person who cast the vote. We should not tie it to a particular office, we should use term "delegated representative". Part of continuum in case of misrepresentation. "delegated and designated to cast". Avoid Chair, office etc terms. Agreed language: Person designated by AC/SO to communicate the AC/SO vote Revocation and resassignments of ccTLD manager - Brought up as part of public comment. Suggestion to have ccNSO develop policy pursuant to FoI. Response to litigation - This does not insulate ICANN from jurisdictional reach of governements. NTIA statement - 4 stress tests were extracted from letter. Are they covered by existing stress tests? ST-NTIA 1 - It means everyone has opportunity to participate. If some do not wish to participate, it does not affect multistakeholder model. Important to articulate that it is opportunity and open ability which should be critical tests for robustness of model we are running. Once you opt in, you can't opt in and out. Designator/member opt-in may only need one. Do we want to consider whether that can be altered? Should we advocate that invitations to exercise votes are open invitation to participate? --> Invitation should be open to all ST-NTIA-2 - Do we need to ask for processes on AC/SOs to make sure the communities are aware of voting? We can add that need transparency rules as part of voting process. Have we built requirements into our community empowerment mechanism? Stress Test could be community choosing to ignore advice in its deliberations and voting. ACTION ITEM - Sam to send draft language on inclusiveness point. IRP is set up for making decisions that are binding on Board and not binding on SO/ACs. Are we now saying IRP is viable mechanism for appealing against SO/AC issues? Or are we saying Board has ability to force on SO/AC? Could ATRT review these cases and criteria? Consider ombudsman. ST-NTIA-3 - It is our objective to employ open, bottom-up processes. If they were specific decisions acting to exclude new participants, this commitment (para 89) would give basis for challenge. We should document this stress test. ST-NTIA 4 - None of SO/ACs have operational role although GNSO creeps into it through its implementation review teams. Not sure if needs to be done. We have distinguish between models in terms of responses. Stress Test Analysis for test 23 Malcolm Hutty walked the WP through <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/52232556/Stress%20Test%20A… v%202015-06-28%5B1%5D.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1436348131912&api=v2> https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/52232556/Stress%20Test%20A… %202015-06-28%5B1%5D.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1436348131912&api=v2 Most stress tests suggest IRP as way to challenge and assume that they are enforceable. It is universally accepted that IRP will be binding arbitration. It does not necessarily relate to scenario in stress test 23. Does ICANN volunteer submit to arbitration? We need to analyze how ICANN can be held accountable for that decision. We will need to come back to this topic on our next call. This document will also need to be brought to larger CCWG group and suggest that it be flagged as a document on reading list. We have more to do on document dated 20 June. ACTION ITEM - Share stress tests analysis for 23 with list. - Suggestion that the document depends upon 2 assumptions that should be tested with Counsel: Can ICANN decline to accept binding IRP? and 2) can anyone enforce a binding IRP decision in courts that recognize binding arbitration?

1 0

First Public Comment Review - information on CCWG wiki
by Adam Peake July 8, 2015

July 8, 2015

Hi everyone, A new page on the CCWG wiki has been put together to collect documents for the first pubic comment review, please see https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/First+Public+Comment+Revie w The page links to the current version of the public comment tool document, and summaries prepared by WP1 and WP2 for the Buenos Aires meeting. Thank you, Adam

1 0

Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Who is managing the lawyers and what have they beenasked to do?
by Alan Greenberg July 8, 2015

July 8, 2015

Among the problems with Membership is that there are strong indications that several AC/SOs will not sign on as members (the ALAC is among them) leaving the possibility of very few members, and those members (or quite possibly member) would have the statutory power to unilaterally and irreversibly dissolve the corporation, and the IANA Names stewardship along with it. You might ask, "Why would they do that?" and I have no clue. But if we are determined to consider world with a rogue Board with not a single Board member who is objecting, then a rogue SO cannot be off the radar either. Alan At 06/07/2015 09:01 PM, you wrote: >Hello Avri, > >I believe membership raises the issues of accountability to the full >diversity of stakeholders to a much higher threshold, including the >issue of the degree to which ICANN is accountable to stakeholders not >included among our SG/C/RALO/ALS / as well as among parrticpating CCs >and govts. > > > >Please, if possible, raise your concerns stating >fact rather than belief. Maybe there is >something I have missed. There is absolutely no >difference in the openness to non ICANN >stakeholders between the empowered membership >and empowered designator models. At least I >don't see any. Both are based upon the current >SOAC's. If there is a difference in this area I >need to and want to be educated. Please respond >with specific and detailed instances or examples >of why what you claim is true is. Vague >generalities are not particularly helpful. >Again, I am open to be educated and persuaded >but with substantive fact rather than vague as yet unsubstantiated beliefs. > >No model is as open to non SOAC's as is >Malcolm's proposal for individual membership. >That, again, is a membership model. Do you >support this open membership model and if not >why not? Would you prefer other models to be >looked at that are not based upon the SOAC's? I >think that would be a very reasonable position >and one I certainly am open to supporting if a >workable model would be proposed. As yet I have >not seen one. Have you? Should we try to find one? > >I think enough of the comments bring out questions of accountability in >a mebership organization to make the membership option less than optimal. > > > >What comments are you referring to? Certainly >not the public comments which were basically >supportive of membership. Are these comments you >refer to based upon vague generalities or >specific problems? If there are specific >problems what specifically are they? Should we >not determine whether there are solutions to >those problems rather than just dismissing the >model outright? If not, what are your views as >to the ultimate apparent unenforceability of the >designator model in certain areas? Do you >disagree with Paul Rosenzweig when he states >that "a direct community veto of budget and >strategic plan remains essential to >accountability"? If not, what do you propose to >do in these areas without membership. Should we simply forget them? > >I do think there may be another option or two >out there and hopefully working with our counsel we'll find them. > >In the interim, I really am looking to be >educated. No one has taught me more about ICANN >since I became involved in it than you Avri. I'm >just not easily persuadable by vague opinions, >I'm a fact based sort of guy. As this process >has moved forward I've seen your views and >positions change. To me, that is an >admirable sign of someone truly looking for an >optimal answer rather than one who is clinging >to a defined position. I'm just having some >trouble understanding, factually, the specific >objections you are now raising about membership. >I hope you can help me understand so I can >better test and evaluate my own views.. > >Thanks, > >Ed > >On 06-Jul-15 19:05, Edward Morris wrote: > > +1. Well said. > > > > > > On Mon, Jul 6, 2015 at 9:04 PM, Jonathan Zuck > <<mailto:JZuck@actonline.org>JZuck(a)actonline.org > > <mailto:JZuck@actonline.org>> wrote: > > > > Hmm. I think itâs important to bear in mind that there was > > overwhelming consensus among the public comments to support the > > membership model. The detractors from the model, while important > > and perhaps critical, are not in the majority. Iâm not sure this > > process speaks to how we better use counsel as much as how we > > achieve consensus on principles. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > *From:*<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>accountability-cross-community-bounces(a)icann.org > > > <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> > > > [mailto:<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>accountability-cross-community-bounces(a)icann.org > > > <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>] *On > > Behalf Of *Seun Ojedeji > > *Sent:* Monday, July 6, 2015 3:50 PM > > *To:* Becky Burr > > *Cc:* > <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org > > > <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> > > *Subject:* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Who is managing the lawyers and what > > have they beenasked to do? > > > > > > > > Hi Becky, > > > > Thanks for asking, item 3 is actually in connection to the fact > > that such veto may not be possible without item 1(as I understood > > it) and that is why I said an indirect veto can happen not that I > > was entirely suggesting that those powers be off the table. > > > > It seem however that folks are only looking at the powers and not > > at what it will take to have them. > > > > By the way, I also did put in a reservation that we may not > > necessarily agree with those views but my concern is mainly that > > the ccwg does not spend so much time developing proposals that we > > know has certain implementation requirements that are not > > compatible with the ICANN community structure. I think we should > > learn from the the past (based on comments from the last PC) and > > utilize legal council and volunteer hours more effectively. > > > > FWIW speaking as participant. > > > > Regards > > > > On 6 Jul 2015 8:08 pm, "Burr, Becky" > <<mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz>Becky.Burr(a)neustar.biz > > <mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz>> wrote: > > > > Seun, > > > > > > > > I am not sure why we would take direct budget/strat plan veto > > off the table. Could you explain? Thanks. > > > > > > > > Becky > > > > J. Beckwith Burr > > > > *Neustar, Inc. /* Deputy General Counsel and Chief Privacy Officer > > > > 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20006 > > > > Office: <tel:%2B%201.202.533.2932>+ > 1.202.533.2932 <tel:%2B%201.202.533.2932> Mobile: > > <tel:%2B1.202.352.6367>+1.202.352.6367 > > <tel:%2B1.202.352.6367> / > <mailto:becky.burr@neustar.biz>becky.burr(a)neustar.biz > > <mailto:becky.burr@neustar.biz> / > <http://www.neustar.biz>www.neustar.biz > > <http://www.neustar.biz> > > > > > > > > *From: *Seun Ojedeji > <<mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com>seun.ojedeji(a)gmail.com > > <mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com>> > > *Date: *Monday, July 6, 2015 at 11:09 AM > > *To: *Robin Gross <<mailto:robin@ipjustice.org>robin(a)ipjustice.org > > <mailto:robin@ipjustice.org>> > > *Cc: *Accountability Community > > > <<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org > > > <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> > > *Subject: *Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Who is managing the lawyers and > > what have they beenasked to do? > > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > I have no problem with having a new proposal presented. > > However it is important that there some adherence to basic > > principles on proposals that the ccwg would not want to > > explore. Three areas comes to mind: > > > > - Its my understanding that anything that will turn some/all > > of the SO/AC to members and thereby exposing them to legal > > challenge is not acceptable > > > > - Its my understanding that anything that allows removal of > > individual board member without the approval of the entire(or > > larger part) of the community is not acceptable > > > > - Its my understanding that a solution that allows direct > > community veto on certain elements like budget, strategic plan > > et all is not acceptable but an indirect enforcement could be > > considered (i.e using a power to get another power executed > > indirectly) > > > > > > > > Some/none of the above may be acceptable by us, but my point > > is that there should be some focus going forward, especially > > if the target of ICANN54 is to be meet > > > > Regards > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Jul 6, 2015 at 3:37 PM, Robin Gross > > > <<mailto:robin@ipjustice.org>robin(a)ipjustice.org > <mailto:robin@ipjustice.org>> wrote: > > > > I would also like to hear what they propose at this > > stage. I really don't see how it could hurt to have > > another proposal to consider. Larry Strickling did say he > > wanted us to be sure we examined all the options carefully. > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > Robin > > > > > > > > On Jul 6, 2015, at 7:32 AM, Greg Shatan wrote: > > > > > > > > I agree. We should have the benefit of their thoughts. > > > > > > > > Greg > > > > > > > > On Mon, Jul 6, 2015 at 9:38 AM, Jordan Carter > > <<mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz>jordan(a)internetnz.net.nz > > <mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz>> wrote: > > > > Well, I would really really like to see what the > > creative thinking they have done has suggested. I > > trust our ability as a group to make decisions, > > and do not believe we should cut off input from > > any direction... > > > > > > > > Jordan > > > > > > > > On 7 July 2015 at 01:13, James Gannon > > <<mailto:james@cyberinvasion.net>james(a)cyberinvasion.net > > <mailto:james@cyberinvasion.net>> wrote: > > > > Hey Avri, > > > > > > > > Yes the 3rd model was brought up, and the > > lawyers feel that it might be a cleaner way > > for us to get the powers that we need. > > > > But without a call from the CCWG to present it > > they feel that its not their position to > > propose a model on their own initiative. > > > > > > > > Personally i would like to see what they have > > come up with but the CCWG would need to ask as > > an overall group for the chairs to direct them > > to give some more information on the model if > > we wanted it. > > > > I think if after we hear from them on Tuesdays > > call we still feel we might have some > > shortcomings that it might be the time to ask > > them about the 3rd option. > > > > > > > > Also +1 I think they are really enjoying the > > work and are finding themselves getting more > > and more involved as we go on, which is great > > for the CCWG as the more background and > > details they know the better that are able to > > give us solid well reasoned advice in my opinion. > > > > > > > > -James > > > > > > > > > > > > On 6 Jul 2015, at 13:19, Avri Doria > > > <<mailto:avri@acm.org>avri(a)acm.org <mailto:avri@acm.org>> wrote: > > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > I have not had a chance to get back to the > > recording of the call. Not > > sure I will, that time was the time I had > > for that call and that is why > > i was listening then. > > > > In any case, the lawyers were talking > > about a new model they had come up > > with, but not knowing what to do about it > > since they had not been asked > > for a new model. > > > > I was told to leave before I got to hear > > the end of that story. Or about > > the model itself. Anyone who has had a > > chance to listen, whatever happened? > > > > avri > > > > ps. sometimes i think the lawyers are > > getting interested in what we are > > doing, almost like stakeholders. not that > > i expect them to give up their > > hourly rates because they are stakeholders. > > > > On 06-Jul-15 05:07, James Gannon wrote: > > > > > > I listened to the last co-chairs > > lawyersâ call at; > > > <https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=53782602>https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=53782602 > > > > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_pa…> > > > (Iâm a glutton for punishment) > > > > > > > > It was a short call and Iâll make a > > particular note that Leon and > > Mathieu made a point of not making any > > decisions on behalf of the > > whole group and made it clear anything > > requiring a decision must be > > made by the overall CCWG, so I was > > happy with that side of things > > myself, most of my own fears about not > > having a sub-group are somewhat > > assuaged. > > > > So my paraphrasing and overview is: > > > > > > > > Â· Lawyers working hard on the > > models for us collaboratively > > between the two firms since BA > > > > Â· Lawyers are prepping a > > presentation to give to us ASAP > > before Paris if possible, that > > presentation will take the majority of > > a call, it canât be done quickly, they > > need about 45mins uninterrupted > > to go through the presentation and > > then would likely need Q&A time > > after they present. > > > > Â· Some small > > wording/clarifications to come back to > > the CCWG > > to make sure everyoneâs on the same page > > > > Â· Everyone feels Paris will be > > an important time for the > > models, lawyers will be ready for a > > grilling on the details of the > > models from us to flesh out any of our > > concerns/questions > > > > > > > > Note that the above is all my very > > condensed overview of the > > conversations. > > > > It seemed like a productive call to me. > > > > > > > > -James > > > > > > > > > > > > > *From:*<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>accountability-cross-community-bounces(a)icann.org > > > > <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> > > > [mailto:<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>accountability-cross-community-bounces(a)icann.org > > > > <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>] > > *On Behalf > > Of *Greg Shatan > > *Sent:* Monday, July 06, 2015 5:33 AM > > *To:* Carlos Raul > > *Cc:* > > > <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org > > > <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> > > *Subject:* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Who is > > managing the lawyers and what have > > they beenasked to do? > > > > > > > > Carlos, > > > > > > > > As the legal sub-team was disbanded, > > your guess is as good as mine..... > > > > > > > > Greg > > > > > > > > On Mon, Jul 6, 2015 at 12:27 AM, > > Carlos Raul > <<mailto:carlosraulg@gmail.com>carlosraulg(a)gmail.com > > <mailto:carlosraulg@gmail.com> > > <mailto:carlosraulg@gmail.com>> wrote: > > > > Thank you Greg! > > > > > > > > It makes a lot of sense and I guess > > those are all good reasons as > > we hired them in the first place. > > What are the next steps now? > > What happened in the recent call? > > > > > > > > Best regards > > > > > > > > > > Carlos RaÃºl GutiÃ©rrez > > > > <tel:%2B506%208837%207176>+506 8837 7176 > > <tel:%2B506%208837%207176> > > <tel:%2B506%208837%207176> > > > > Skype carlos.raulg > > > > _________ > > > > Apartado 1571-1000 > > > > *COSTA RICA* > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Jul 6, 2015 at 12:02 AM, > > Greg Shatan > > > <<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com > > > <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> > > wrote: > > > > Chris, > > > > > > > > That was tried to some extent, > > at least in the CWG. > > > > > > > > There are several substantial > > problems with that approach. > > > > > > > > First, lawyers are not > > fungible. The particular legal skills, > > background and experience > > required for the issues before both > > WGs are fairly specific, and in > > some cases, very specific. > > The primary core competency > > needed here is corporate > > governance. While a number of > > lawyers in the community have a > > reasonable working knowledge of > > the area, at least in their > > home jurisdictions, I don't > > believe there are any who would > > say that this is their primary > > focus and expertise -- at least > > none who identified themselves > > to either WG. The second core > > competency required, especially > > in the CCWG, is non-profit > > law. Again there are a number > > of lawyers with a decent working > > knowledge of this fairly broad > > field, but not as a primary > > focus. There may be a couple > > of lawyers in the community who > > would claim this fairly broad > > field as a primary focus and > > expertise -- but none who > > became involved with either WG. > > This then becomes further > > narrowed by jurisdiction. Since > > ICANN is a California > > non-profit corporation, US corporate > > governance and non-profit > > experience is more relevant than > > experience from other > > jurisdictions, and California law > > corporate governance and > > non-profit experience is more > > relevant than that from other > > US jurisdictions. In my > > experience, the more a US > > lawyer focuses on a particular > > substantive area, the greater > > their knowledge of and comfort > > with state law issues in US > > state jurisdictions other than > > their own (e.g., someone who > > spend a majority of their time > > working in corporate governance > > will have a greater knowledge > > of the law, issues, approaches > > and trends outside their > > primary state of practice, > > while someone who spends a > > relatively small amount of time > > in the area will tend to feel > > less comfortable outside their > > home jurisdiction). (An > > exception is that many US > > lawyers have specific knowledge of > > certain Delaware corporate law > > issues, because Delaware often > > serves as the state of > > incorporation for entities operating > > elsewhere.) > > > > > > > > Second, lawyers in the > > community will seldom be seen as > > neutral advisors, no matter how > > hard they try. They will tend > > to be seen as working from > > their point of view or stakeholder > > group or "special interest" or > > desired outcome, even if they > > are trying to be even-handed. > > Over the course of time, this > > balancing act would tend to > > become more untenable. > > > > > > > > Third, the amount of time it > > would take to provide truly > > definitive legal advice > > (research, careful drafting, > > discussions with relevant > > "clients", etc.) would be > > prohibitive, even compared to > > the substantial amount of time > > it takes to provide reasonably > > well-informed and competent > > legal-based viewpoints in the > > course of either WG's work. > > > > > > > > Fourth, in order to formally > > counsel the community, the lawyer > > or lawyers in question would > > have to enter into a formal > > attorney-client relationship. > > Under US law, an > > attorney-client relationship > > may inadvertently be created by > > the attorney's actions, so > > attorneys try to be careful about > > not providing formal legal > > advice without a formal engagement > > (sometimes providing an > > explicit "caveat" if they feel they > > might be getting too close to > > providing legal advice). If the > > attorney is employed by a > > corporation, they would likely be > > unable to take on such a > > representation due to the terms of > > their employment, and that is > > before getting to an exploration > > of conflict of interest > > issues. If the attorney is employed > > by a firm, the firm would have > > to sign off on the > > representation, again dealing > > with potential conflict issues. > > > > > > > > Fifth, even if the above issues > > were all somehow resolved, it > > would be highly unlikely that > > any such attorney would provide > > substantial amounts of advice, > > written memos, counseling, etc. > > on a pro bono (unpaid) basis, > > especially given the > > time-consuming nature of the > > work. Pro bono advice and > > representation is generally > > accorded to individuals and > > entities that could not > > otherwise be able to pay for it. That > > is clearly not the case here, > > at least with ICANN taking > > financial responsibility. It > > would likely be very difficult > > to justify this to, e.g., a > > firm's pro bono committee, as a > > valid pro bono representation. > > > > > > > > Sixth, if ICANN were not taking > > the role they are taking, it > > would be extremely difficult to > > identify the "client" in this > > situation. The "community" is > > a collection of sectors, > > mostly represented by various > > ICANN-created structures, which > > in turn have members of widely > > varying types (individuals, > > corporations, sovereigns, > > non-profits, IGOs, partnerships, > > etc.). This would also make it > > extremely difficult to enter > > into a formal counseling > > relationship with the "community." > > > > > > > > Seventh, this is a sensitive, > > high-profile, transformative set > > of actions we are involved in, > > which is subject to an > > extraordinary amount of > > scrutiny, not least that of the NTIA > > and the US Congress. That > > eliminates any possibility of > > providing informal, > > off-the-cuff, reasonably well-informed but > > not quite expert, "non-advice" > > advice -- which might happen in > > a more obscure exercise. > > There's simply too much at stake. > > > > > > > > Finally, I would say that a > > number of attorneys involved in > > one or both of the WGs are in > > fact providing a significant > > amount of legal knowledge and > > experience to the WGs, helping > > to frame issues, whether in > > terms of general leadership (e.g., > > Thomas, Leon, Becky) or more > > specifically in a > > "lawyer-as-client" capacity -- > > working with outside counsel, > > tackling the more legalistic > > issues, providing as much legal > > background and knowledge as > > possible without providing the > > type of formal legal advice > > that would tend to create an > > attorney-client relationship, > > etc. So I do think that many > > lawyers in the community are > > giving greatly of themselves in > > this process, even though they > > cannot and would not be able to > > formally be engaged by the > > community as its "counsel of record." > > > > > > > > In sum, it might be a nice > > thought in theory, but it is no way > > a practical possibility. > > > > > > > > Greg > > > > > > > > On Sat, Jul 4, 2015 at 3:08 AM, > > CW Lists > > > <<mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu>lists(a)christopherwilkinson.eu > > <mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu> > > <mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu>> > > wrote: > > > > Good morning: > > > > > > > > I had decided not to enter > > this debate. But I am bound to > > say that the thought had > > occurred to me at the time, that > > there were more than enough > > qualified lawyers in this > > community that they could > > perfectly well have counselled > > themselves. > > > > > > > > CW > > > > > > > > On 04 Jul 2015, at 08:41, > > Greg Shatan > > > <<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com > > > <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Wolfgang, > > > > > > > > To your first point, > > the billing rates were clearly > > stated in the law > > firms' engagement letters. > > > > > > > > To your second point, > > I'm sure we could all think of > > other projects and > > goals where the money could have > > been "better spent." > > You've stated yours. But that > > is not the proper > > test. This was and continues to be > > money we need to spend > > to achieve the goals we have > > set. Under different > > circumstances, perhaps it would > > be a different amount > > (or maybe none at all). But it > > was strongly felt at > > the outset that the group needed > > to have independent > > counsel. Clearly that counsel > > needed to have > > recognized expertise in the appropriate > > legal areas. As such, > > I believe we made excellent > > choices and have been > > very well represented. > > > > > > > > As to your "better > > spent" test, I just had to have > > $4000.00 worth of > > emergency dental work done. This > > money definitely could > > have been "better spent" on a > > nice vacation, > > redecorating our living room or on > > donations to my favored > > charitable causes. But I had > > no choice, other than > > to choose which dentist and > > endodontist I went to, > > and I wasn't going to cut > > corners -- the dental > > work was a necessity. > > Similarly, the legal > > work we are getting is a > > necessity and whether > > we would have preferred to spend > > the money elsewhere is > > not merely irrelevant, it is an > > incorrect and > > inappropriate proposition. Many of us > > are investing vast > > quantities of time that could be > > "better spent" > > elsewhere as well, but we are willing > > (grudgingly sometimes) > > to spend the time it takes to > > get it right, because > > we believe it needs to be done. > > This is the appropriate > > measure, whether it comes to > > our time or counsels' > > time. If we believe in this > > project, we have to > > invest in it, and do what it takes > > to succeed. > > > > > > > > Of course, this > > investment has to be managed wisely > > and cost-effectively, > > and by and large, I believe the > > CCWG has done that > > reasonably well -- not perfectly, > > but reasonably well and > > with "course corrections" > > along the way intended > > to improve that management. > > It's certainly fair to > > ask, as Robin has done, for a > > better understanding of > > that management as we go > > along. But asserting > > that the money could have been > > "better spent" > > elsewhere sets up a false test that we > > should not use to > > evaluate this important aspect of > > our work. Instead, we > > need to focus on whether the > > money was "well spent" > > on these critical legal > > services. If you have > > reason to believe it was not, > > that could be useful to > > know. That would at least be > > the right discussion to > > have. > > > > > > > > Greg > > > > > > > > On Sat, Jul 4, 2015 at > > 1:13 AM, "KleinwÃ¤chter, > > Wolfgang" > > > <<mailto:wolfgang.kleinwaechter@medienkomm.uni-halle.de>wolfgang.kleinwaechter(a)medienkomm.uni-halle.de > > > > <mailto:wolfgang.kleinwaechter@medienkomm.uni-halle.de> > > > <mailto:wolfgang.kleinwaechter@medienkomm.uni-halle.de>> > > wrote: > > > > HI, > > > > and please if you > > ask outside lawyers, ask for the > > price tag in > > advance. Some of the money spend fo > > lawyers could have > > been spend better to suppport > > and enable Internet > > user and non-commercial groups > > in developing > > countries. > > > > > > Wolfgang > > > > > > > > > > > > -----UrsprÃ¼ngliche > > Nachricht----- > > Von: > > > <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>accountability-cross-community-bounces(a)icann.org > > > > <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> > > > <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> > > im Auftrag von > > Robin Gross > > Gesendet: Fr > > 03.07.2015 14:57 > > An: > <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org > > > <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> > > > <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> > > Community > > Betreff: > > [CCWG-ACCT] Who is managing the lawyers > > and what have they > > beenasked to do? > > > > > > After the legal > > sub-team was disbanded, I haven't > > been able to follow > > what communications are > > happening with CCWG > > and the independent lawyers we > > retained. > > > > I understand the > > lawyers are currently "working on > > the various models" > > and will present something to > > us regarding that > > work soon. However, *what > > exactly* have the > > lawyers been asked to do and > > *who* asked them? > > If there are written > > instructions, may > > the group please see them? Who > > is now taking on > > the role of managing the outside > > attorneys for this > > group, including providing > > instructions and > > certifying legal work? > > > > Sorry, but I'm > > really trying to understand what is > > happening, and > > there doesn't seem to be much > > information in the > > public on this (or if there is, > > I can't find it). > > Thanks for any information > > anyone can provide. > > > > Best, > > Robin > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Accountability-Cross-Community > > mailing list > > > <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org>Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org > > > <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> > > > <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> > > > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community > > > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_l…> > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Accountability-Cross-Community > > mailing list > > > <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org>Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org > > > <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> > > > <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> > > > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community > > > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_l…> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Accountability-Cross-Community > > mailing list > > > <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org>Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org > > > <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> > > > <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> > > > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community > > > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_l…> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Accountability-Cross-Community mailing > > list > > > <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org>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 > > > > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_l…> > > > > > > > > > --- > > This email has been checked for viruses by > > Avast antivirus software. > > > <https://www.avast.com/antivirus>https://www.avast.com/antivirus > > > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.avast.com_antiviru…> > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list > > > <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org>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 > > > > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_l…> > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list > > > <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org>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 > > > > <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) > > <mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz>jordan(a)internetnz.net.nz > > <mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz> > > Skype: jordancarter > > > > /A better world through a better Internet / > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list > > > <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org>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 > > > > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_l…> > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list > > > <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org>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 > > > > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_l…> > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list > > > <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org>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 > > > > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_l…> > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > /Seun Ojedeji, > > Federal University Oye-Ekiti > > web: //<http://www.fuoye.edu.ng>http://www.fuoye.edu.ng > > > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.fuoye.edu.ng&d=AwMF…> > > > //Mobile: +2348035233535 <tel:%2B2348035233535>// > > //alt > <mailto:email%3Aseun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng>email:seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng > > <mailto:seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng>/ > > > > The key to understanding is humility - my view ! > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list > > > <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org>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 > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list > > > <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org>Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org > > > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community > >--- >This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. ><https://www.avast.com/antivirus>https://www.avast.com/antivirus >_______________________________________________ >Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list ><mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org>Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org > >https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community > > >_______________________________________________ >Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list >Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org >https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

12 26

Question for Discussion
by James Gannon July 7, 2015

July 7, 2015

Hi All, Find below and in the attached PDF the questions that I referred to on the CCWG call. This is a complication of thoughts of a number of us since Buenos Aires, intended to drive some discussion and debate. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ This is a drafting document to collate some questions and draft some answers on the model that emerged from the Friday 19 June CCWG meeting. It has no standing but is intended to be shared with the CCWG for discussion and debate. * Questions tagged with FAQ are ones that we feel should be included in a FAQ for the community and for the public at large to gain additional information about the models. * Questions tagged with Gov are questions we feel are of particular interest to Governmental and Political observers. * Questions tagged with Lawyers are questions we feel our legal counsel should consider responding to as part of their construction of the various options. Balance of powers among SOs/ACs: 1. Will powerful organizations get more power within ICANN over other stakeholders in the community through this model, by becoming unincorporated association and have legal enforceability? 2. If an SO or AC moves to become a formal member, what can it do that other SOs or ACs can't do? [FAQ] 3. Under the empowered designator model what would the standing of the nomcom be? What rights would it be afforded and can those rights be limited to recall of their board members? [Lawyers] [FAQ] 4. Does this model give more powers to the GAC more than it does today?[FAQ, Gov] 5. Does this model give the same powers to the GAC relative to other SOs/ACs, or does this create any difference?? [FAQ, Gov] 6. Does the model satisfy NTIA's criteria of no governmental control? [FAQ,Gov} Implications for each SO/AC: 7. Will my organisation have to join anything to exercise the powers listed as requirements by the CCWG proposal? [FAQ] 8. Will any new obligations arise for SOs or ACs that move to become a formal member? [FAQ] 9. Under the empowered designator model what powers would be afforded to the GAC as they do not appoint a board member?[FAQ,Gov] 10. What happens if half of an SO wants to become full members and half to do not? (i.e. split in the SO/AC internal membership about becoming full members of ICANN) [FAQ, Gov] 11. How granular can / should a member be under hybrid-membership model? Do individual SG's or constituencies have full membership rights that they can exercise unilaterally? Or should / can there be certain constraints on the exercise of member rights? How to protect minority rights without locking-up org with complaints? At what different levels may / should decisions be taken? Enforceability: 12. How can the community exercise the powers and have the most effective enforceability on rejecting or approving budget/operational/strategic plans under membership model and designators model respectively? [FAQ, Gov] 13. How could the decisions by the IRP be made enforceable to the Board under membership model and designators model respectively? Are there other alternatives to make it enforceable other than to give the legal standing such as through the Bylaws?[Lawyers] [FAQ,Gov] 14. How enforceable can internal accountability mechanisms be made under California law without resorting to the courts? eg. The IRP or a formal mediation process.[Lawyers} 15. What precedents are available to assess California's approach when internal accountability disputes are appealed to the court? eg. Binding IRP is not followed and is brought to court to enforce the decision of the panel.[Lawyers] 16. How will the community enforce the bylaws under the empowered designator model? [FAQ, Gov] 17. Under hybrid/membership model, how and when will members be entitled to file derivative lawsuits against ICANN and what is the impact on the community from derivative lawsuits? To what extent can / should that member right (to file derivative lawsuits) be constrained? [Lawyers] [FAQ, Gov] James Gannon Director Cyber Invasion Ltd Dun Laoghaire, County Dublin, Ireland Office: +353 (1)663-8787 Cell: +353 (86)175-3581 Email:james@cyberinvasion.net<mailto:james@cyberinvasion.net?subject=Via:%20Email%20Signature> GPG: https://keybase.io/jayg

1 0

Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Who is managing the lawyers and what have they beenasked to do?
by Dr Eberhard Lisse July 7, 2015

July 7, 2015

Dear Co_chairs, This is correct. I thought that was clear from the context. el On 2015-07-07 15:04, Megan.Richards(a)ec.europa.eu wrote: > The ICANN bylaws indicate that the "policy-development body known > as the Country-Code Names Supporting Organization (ccNSO)..shall > be responsible for 1. Developing and recommending to the Board > global policies relating to country-code top-level domains..." so > not ALL ICANN policy if that was the intention of your message > > > Megan RICHARDS [...] > > -----Original Message----- > From: accountability-cross-community-bounces(a)icann.org On Behalf Of Dr Eberhard Lisse > Sent: Tuesday, July 07, 2015 3:46 PM > Cc: directors(a)omadhina.net; accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org > Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Who is managing the lawyers and what have they beenasked to do? > > Dear Co-Chairs, > > I am on record since very early on that I say what I mean and mean > what I say. > > So the answer is no. > > The ccNSO is a Policy Development body and the policy is ICANN policy > not ccNSO Policy, by the way. > > Come to think of it, I do not think the ccNSO can "speak" for anyone. > > But then I have read the bylaws. > > el [...] -- Dr. Eberhard W. Lisse \ / Obstetrician & Gynaecologist (Saar) el(a)lisse.NA / * | Telephone: +264 81 124 6733 (cell) PO Box 8421 \ / Bachbrecht, Namibia ;____/

1 0

Slides CCWG Call #39
by Kimberly Carlson July 7, 2015

July 7, 2015

Hello, Here are today's slides in both PowerPoint and PDF formats. Thanks! Kim Carlson

5 8

CCWG slide presentation...
by Chris Disspain July 7, 2015

July 7, 2015

Holly, Rosemary, Kudos! Great presentation. Thank you both!! Cheers, Chris

2 1

Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Slides CCWG Call #39
by Kimberly Carlson July 7, 2015

July 7, 2015

Sorry Everyone, These are the slides we want to use. There were several copies circulated. Thanks! Kim

1 0