- Accountability-Cross-Community

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

FW: [WP1] Comments and questions on legal docs
by Samantha Eisner April 15, 2015

April 15, 2015

Dear CCWG members, On a legal sub-team call I committed to identify those questions that seem more ripe for legal inputs as opposed to conversation among the CCWG members or sub-groups. I think that Question 5, 7 and 8 are more questions for the accountability team as opposed to needing legal advice in the first instance. I propose that the attorneys NOT be asked to address these in the first instance to focus their attention on the more legally based questions posed below. Thanks for your consideration. Best, Sam From: Samantha Eisner <samantha.eisner(a)icann.org<mailto:samantha.eisner@icann.org>> Date: Tuesday, April 14, 2015 at 6:58 PM To: "accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>" <accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>>, "wp1(a)icann.org<mailto:wp1@icann.org>" <wp1(a)icann.org<mailto:wp1@icann.org>> Subject: [WP1] Comments and questions on legal docs 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

1 0

Notes-Recordings-Transcript links for LEGAL SubTeam Meeting #11 15 April
by Brenda Brewer April 15, 2015

April 15, 2015

Dear all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for the Accountability LEGAL SubTeam Meeting #11 on 15 April will be available here: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=52895738 Action Items ACTION ITEM - Advise law firms we will need one lawyer for each call on 23-24 April and circulate agenda as soon as available. ACTION ITEM: Staff to arrange a legal subteam session in between intensive sessions ACTION ITEM: Set expectations on whether we want lawyers to observe or participate based on agenda. ACTION ITEM: Robin to incorporate Greg's edits on chart ACTION ITEM Questions raised by Samantha Eisner to be relayed to lawyers ACTION ITEM Samantha to take a first pass at filtering/prioritizing questions. ACTION ITEM: Task lawyers to review WP2 templates and advise on what would need to be put in place to achieve goals. . ACTION ITEM - David to raise issue of IRP with lawyers ACTION ITEM - Ask Paul Twomey to elaborate on question/concern. ACTION ITEM - Send intensive session calendar invites to all, including lawyers ACTION ITEM - Circulate revised version of chart asap in time for WP1 call today ACTION ITEM: Circulate WP2 templates and updated chart Notes Accountability LEGAL Meeting #11 on 15 April. Please note that chat sessions are being archived and follow the ICANN Expected Standards of Behavior: http://www.icann.org/en/news/in-focus/accountability/expected-standards Legal Subt Drafts - http://tinyurl.com/kajxlc <http://tinyurl.com/kajxlc4> These high-level notes are designed to help you navigate through content of the call and do not substitute in any way the transcript. 1. Discuss scheduling and address Samantha Eisner email Intensive two-days: decision on presence of lawyers will be made on Tuesday based on agenda. Suggestion: 1 lawyer to listen in on meetings to understand what proposals entail and what we are trying to achieve. No downtime - lawyers are needed CONCLUSION 1 lawyer on each call would be desirable ACTION ITEM - Advise law firms we will need one lawyer for each call on 23-24 April and circulate agenda as soon as available. Suggestion to have legal subteam call in between intensive sessions to iron out details and touch base with a note that it may overload agenda. ACTION ITEM: Staff to arrange a legal subteam session in between intensive sessions ACTION ITEM: Set expectations on whether we want lawyers to observe or participate based on agenda. 2. Teased out what are the specific 6 community powers we are trying to achieve - and looked at how would enforce it in models. All 6 powers can be created in both models although more complicated in designator model because we would rely on Bylaws. Contractual mechanism would be needed in membership model. For both models, we would need to create intra ICANN judiciary to resolve disputes that could arise from these powers. Feedback: - Expectation is that with good accountability mechanisms in place, judiciary won't be needed. Litigation based on violation of corporate vs. contractual may be easier - need to look at this. Up to next Friday, we need to focus on ability to get directional proposal. - Concerned that larger group would think that under membership model, we constantly go to court. Dangerous impression to give to anybody. 2 problems/2 solutions to making chart more representative. Approve Bylaws: right to enforce lawsuit is a problem. - 3 columns needed under each: how can right be exercised? and how can right be enforced (recourse etc). Designators have one less option than members regarding judiciary. ACTION ITEM: Robin to incorporate Greg's edits on chart 3. Questions have been compiled: IRP, Board inaction, removal of Board etc ACTION ITEM Questions raised by Samantha Eisner to be relayed to lawyers Suggestion to prioritize and filter questions ACTION ITEM Samantha to take a first pass at filtering/prioritizing questions. We have not received legal guidance on WP2. The legal subteam reviewed IRP, Board inaction, internal Bylaw option related questions. Feedback: - Both membership and designator models threw limitations on IRP. To give teeth to IRP decision, both sides will need to go towards that with a contract for Board members. It can be done for action and inactions. - Could have contract with Board when Board member takes seat, it signs letter of resignation when disagreement with IRP decision. ACTION ITEM: Task lawyers to review WP2 templates and advise on what would need to be put in place to achieve goals. - Power would be in community to enforce decision. There needs to be a way for community to disagree with parts of the IRP decision - middleground necessary. `ACTION ITEM - David to raise issue of IRP with lawyers ACTION ITEM - Ask Paul Twomey to elaborate on question/concern. Which would be mechanisms that would trigger action from community to have Board act on something that has not been addressed is a valid question. Answer would depend on final structure we would be proposing. - Suggestion to highlight there is a path on Board inaction ST-WP frustration about absence of input on WP2 and use of Board removal as tool. - Request guidance on whether there are problems for CCWG identified options. - - - - - Counsel joining 4. Expectation to have 1 lawyer on each calls and might ask to have more members present on certain calls (in light of agenda). ACTION ITEM - Send intensive session calendar invites to all, including lawyers Lawyers present on CCWG-Acct calls, legal subteam calls and, upon request, on WP calls. Columns will be added to chart. Updated version will be sent. - Time needed - heavy lifting on judicial side. - Helpful to know whether private arbitral enforcement or judicial. ACTION ITEM - Circulate revised version of chart asap in time for WP1 call today - Need to look what type of escalation path can be taken before ultimate judicial can be enforced. This also ties to WP2s. Ask to look at existing mechanisms instead of new arbitral mechanisms 5 IRP panel could result on binding and scope could be expanded. Trigger mechanism to bring things to Board. WP2 focusing on reconsideration, ombudsman and mission + core values. Request for reconsideration - Robin walked through template. Reconsideration process is in Bylaws - edits in doc are Bylaws changes so important to have check by lawyers. Prioritizing needed CONCLUSION #1 Priority assigned to chart (Friday) #2 WP2 (Tuesday) #3 Rest of assigned questions Clear confirmation on whether IRP can be binding. ACTION ITEM: Circulate WP2 templates and updated chart

1 0

Another Twist to Law, Jurisdiction and Accountability
by Paul Rosenzweig April 15, 2015

April 15, 2015

All As you may know, ICANN recently created the new gTLD .sucks. It appears that the new registry manager, Vox Populi, is charging a rather exorbitant fee of $2500/year for existing trademarks to purchase the relevant domain name in the pre-release Sunrise period. Some have protested to ICANN about this. ICANN's response is interesting and may have relevance to our accountability discussion. It seems (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2015/04/09/the-group-that -created-sucks-now-wants-government-to-keep-it-from-spinning-out-of-control/ ) that ICANN has asked the regulatory authorities in the US and Canada to determine whether or not Vox Populi's pricing is predatory under US and Canadian law (and thus illegal). I am not at all clear whether ICANN has directed this request to those national authorities because it is where they are located or, more likely, because they are the law specified by the underlying contracts. But it does suggest that, in the absence of regulatory authority for ICANN (which I assume we all will continue to wish for) national laws will continue to play a role. I am not in the least bit sure how this plays into our discussions - but it certainly seems a relevant confounding factor we ought to be aware of Paul Paul Rosenzweig Red Branch Consulting, PLLC 509 C St. NE Washington, DC 20002 paul.rosenzweig(a)redbranchconsulting.com <mailto:paul.rosenzweigesq@redbranchconsulting.com> O: +1 (202) 547-0660 M: +1 (202) 329-9650 VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066 www.redbranchconsulting.com <http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/> www.paulrosenzweigesq.com <http://www.paulrosenzweigesq.com/> Link to my PGP Key <http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=articl e&id=19&Itemid=9> <http://www.rsaconference.com/events/us15/register?utm_source=inhouse&utm_me dium=email&utm_campaign=signature-us2015>

10 14