I support Avris approach. If the IANA Transition is completed, ICANN will be much closer to the IETF model. However, one important difference is probably that in the ICANN enmvironment you ned a much higher level of cross community/stakeholder communication, coordination and collaboration. Insofar, the processes which has started under the CCWG acronym has still a lot of potential for future enhancements. It will not end with WS 2... Wolfgang -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org im Auftrag von Avri Doria Gesendet: Sa 13.06.2015 09:10 An: accountability-cross-community@icann.org Betreff: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] FW: [Acct-Legal] Memo - Revised Powers Chart, Voluntary Model Hi, We have a difference in perception on this. Whereas I believe you think of ICANN as a closed community that excludes, I see the ICANN community as an open community that reaches out to all participants and is always reaching towards the global multistakeholder community. There is an ICANN subgroup ready to welcome and include anyone interested. And if some set of people approaches the ICANN community and says there is no place for them, and indeed we find there there isn't, then something will be done accommodate that new need. Even though it is an open community that welcomes everyone who wants to get involved, it recognizes that not all can or would join in this open community. To make sure they are not left out of the processes, they are always open to those others who do not wish to associate with the ICANN community, but want to participate nonetheless. Nt only can they participate fully in building the consensus in the working groups, they can stand on the outside, follow the process and submit comments. Comments that a taken quite seriously by the working group. Between these two elements, I see the process as indeed inclusive of the global multistakeholder community. I can think of no better existing process for doing so, though readily acknowledge that of course the process needs to do ever better at outreach and ever better at inclusion. avri On 13-Jun-15 01:52, parminder wrote:
On Friday 12 June 2015 09:35 PM, Drazek, Keith wrote:
Thanks Becky,
I think you highlight a key point.
Currently, NTIA and the California Attorney General are the only enforcement bodies ensuring ICANN remains committed to its bylaws.
The membership structure would give some of that authority to the ICANN community through its existing structures -- the SOs and ACs.
Isn't that the definition of transitioning the United States government (in its various forms) out of its unique role?
Being at definitional matters; in my understanding, the definition of 'transitioning the US government (in its various forms) out if its unique role' is that the US government, and its agencies, have no role that is not equivalent to that of any other government and its agencies. That has always been the intent and purpose of the long standing global demand for getting rid of US's unilateral oversight over ICANN.
A wrong definition of the problem obviously leads to wrong solutions, as is happening currently with the 'transition process'.
After NTIA disengages, don't we want the community to have shared authority for enforcement,
As you mention in an earlier part of your email, with community you of course mean 'ICANN community'. Whatever be the intention of the 'ICANN community', even NTIA's announcement asked for the oversight to pass to 'global multistakeholder community' and not to the 'ICANN community'. Now if the 'ICANN community' being in charge of running the transition process appropriates that new (partly) transitioned oversight role to itself, it is perhaps an understandable human failing, but that would normally be called as an illegitimate capture.
parminder
rather than leaving it to the California Attorney General alone?
Regards, Keith
*From:*accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Burr, Becky *Sent:* Friday, June 12, 2015 11:07 AM *To:* Roelof Meijer; Accountability Cross Community *Subject:* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] FW: [Acct-Legal] Memo - Revised Powers Chart, Voluntary Model
Roelof,
shi
As I understand it, Courts view the bylaws as a contract between a corporation and its members/shareholders. If ICANN has no members, the bylaws are not a contract with anyone, so the only party with authority to enforce would be the Attorney General. (As discussed elsewhere, this is extremely unlikely to happen outside of a fraud/corruption situation.)
The fact that members of SO's are legal entities doesn't change this. Unless they are members of ICANN, they are not a party to the bylaws "contract."
B
J. Beckwith Burr
*Neustar, Inc. /* Deputy General Counsel and Chief Privacy Officer
1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20006
Office: + 1.202.533.2932 Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 / becky.burr@neustar.biz <mailto:becky.burr@neustar.biz> / www.neustar.biz <http://www.neustar.biz>
*From: *Roelof Meijer <Roelof.Meijer@sidn.nl <mailto:Roelof.Meijer@sidn.nl>> *Date: *Friday, June 12, 2015 at 8:18 AM *To: *Accountability Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> *Subject: *[CCWG-ACCT] FW: [Acct-Legal] Memo - Revised Powers Chart, Voluntary Model
Dear all, and especially dear legal colleagues,
The memo states:
"If there were a dispute between ICANN and an SO/AC, the parties could agree to an IRP and binding arbitration, but there would be no mechanism to restrain ICANN from acting contrary to these decisions, nor would there be a mechanism to challenge an arbitration decision that exceeded the scope of authority of the arbitration panel, outside an unlikely, independent intervention by the California Attorney General. "
I understand that the SO/AC's, not being legal entities, cannot take legal action to enforce. However, does that really equal "no mechanism to restrain ICANN from acting contrary to these decisions"?
Most members of SO's are legal entities, many members of AC's are too, couldn't those members, being affected parties, individually or collectively take legal action?
Alternatively, I would assume that before the ultimate step of talking legal action against ICANN, the community will have escalated through its powers and thus has completed the procedure to recall the entire board. The power to recall the entire board will have to be combined with the power to in one way or another appoint an interim board. So, the community, through due process, recalls the board. The board, in contradiction with the bylaws, refuses "to go". The community has recalled the board and thus, through the defined process (also in the bylaws), appoints an interim board. According to the bylaws, this interim board is now the legal representative of ICANN. And can take the required legal action (if necessary) to force the "old" board to go away and get lost.
Would one of these two work?
Best,
Roelof Meijer
*From: *<Hofheimer>, "Joshua T." <jhofheimer@sidley.com <mailto:jhofheimer@sidley.com>> *Date: *donderdag 11 juni 2015 06:09 *To: *"ccwg-accountability5@icann.org <mailto:ccwg-accountability5@icann.org>" <ccwg-accountability5@icann.org <mailto:ccwg-accountability5@icann.org>> *Cc: *Sidley ICANN CCWG <sidleyicannccwg@sidley.com <mailto:sidleyicannccwg@sidley.com>>, ICANN-Adler <ICANN@adlercolvin.com <mailto:ICANN@adlercolvin.com>> *Subject: *[Acct-Legal] Memo - Revised Powers Chart, Voluntary Model
Dear Legal Sub-Team,
Further to the CCWG request on the call last Friday, attached is a memo revising the summary chart describing the viability of the enumerated powers under the three models - Member model, Designator Model and Voluntary Model. We also explore the impact of not having the SO/ACs organized legal persons to represent their interests.
Cheers,
Josh
*JOSHUA* *HOFHEIMER *
Sidley Austin LLP +1.213.896.6061 (LA direct) +1.650.565.7561 (PA direct) +1.323.708.2405 (cell) jhofheimer@sidley.com <mailto:jhofheimer@sidley.com> www.sidley.com <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.sidley.com_&d=AwMF-g...>
http://www.sidley.com/files/upload/signatures/SA-autosig.png <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.sidley.com_&d=AwMF-g...> *SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP*
*From:*ccwg-accountability5-bounces@icann.org <mailto:ccwg-accountability5-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:ccwg-accountability5-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Hilton, Tyler *Sent:* Monday, June 08, 2015 8:29 PM *To:* ccwg-accountability5@icann.org <mailto:ccwg-accountability5@icann.org> *Subject:* [Acct-Legal] Memo - Responses to CCWG GAC Questions
Dear Legal Sub-team,
Attached please find a memo responding to the list of questions from the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) provided to us on June 5, 2015.
Best,
*TYLER* *HILTON* Associate
Sidley Austin LLP 555 West Fifth Street Los Angeles, CA 90013 +1.213.896.6130 thilton@sidley.com <mailto:thilton@sidley.com> www.sidley.com <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.sidley.com&d=AwMF-g&...>
http://www.sidley.com/files/upload/signatures/SA-autosig.png <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.sidley.com_&d=AwMF-g...> *SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP*
**************************************************************************************************** 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.
****************************************************************************************************
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community