Hi, I think that the fiduciary responsibility does not change. What changes is whether the Board has unilateral and final control of the meaning and implications of its fiduciary responsibility or of the decisions based upon that vision. avri On 22-Sep-15 08:43, Samantha Eisner wrote:
Jordan, can you please elaborate more on the “different fiduciary duty” situation that you refer? As I understand it, the fiduciary duties of the Board do not change whether a member is present or not.
Thanks,
Sam
From: <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Jordan Carter <jordan@internetnz.net.nz <mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz>> Date: Tuesday, September 22, 2015 at 5:15 AM To: Chris Disspain <ceo@auda.org.au <mailto:ceo@auda.org.au>> Cc: "Accountability Cross Community (accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>)" <accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] MEM and enforceability
Hi Chris, all:
The second is not the same with the single member model. As has been outlined on list before, the different fiduciary duties situation that exists with membership solves that problem.
On the first, the plan of the CCWG has been binding not advisory IRP so I don't think that it is the same, no.
On the third, that does seem a sensible time frame constraint...
best Jordan
On 23 September 2015 at 00:06, Chris Disspain <ceo@auda.org.au <mailto:ceo@auda.org.au>> wrote:
Hello David,
I appreciate the constructive criticism 😀.
Are these points not the same as with the IRP in the sole member model? They would need to be addressed in either case wouldn't they?
Cheers,
Chris
On 22 Sep 2015, at 21:59, McAuley, David <dmcauley@verisign.com <mailto:dmcauley@verisign.com>> wrote:
I appreciate the board’s input and take it as a good faith effort to enhance and evolve the CCWG proposal.
However, I have, with respect, three critiques of it.
First, the ability to create a remedy if the MEM panel finds against the board is completely within the board’s discretion. Even a slight (even inconsequential) “remedy” would be a remedy and would, effectively, bar any viable avenue to court enforcement.
Second, (and this applies to any panel ruling) any decision by the board to state that a ruling against it falls into the area of the board’s fiduciary obligations (thus frustrating implementation of the ruling) should itself be appealable to ensure that this is, in fact, an objectively justified conclusion.
And, third, if we went down this path, the board’s ability to create a remedy (subject, I would urge, to some test for reasonableness) should be time-limited so that a claimant need not wait and wonder if it can ever appeal to court.
David McAuley
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
-- Jordan Carter
Chief Executive *InternetNZ*
+64-4-495-2118 (office) | +64-21-442-649 (mob) Email: jordan@internetnz.net.nz <mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz> Skype: jordancarter Web: www.internetnz.nz <http://www.internetnz.nz>
/A better world through a better Internet /
_______________________________________________ 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