Avri, I agree with everything you said. I admit that the membership model has some merit, but it brings several problems that have been raised in our WG and reiterated in the public comments. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- Tijani BEN JEMAA Executive Director Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations (FMAI) Phone: + 216 41 649 605 Mobile: + 216 98 330 114 Fax: + 216 70 853 376 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- -----Message d'origine----- De : accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] De la part de Avri Doria Envoyé : lundi 15 juin 2015 15:03 À : accountability-cross-community@icann.org Objet : Re: [CCWG-ACCT] [Acct-Legal] Memo - Revised Powers Chart, Voluntary Model Hi, I agree with those who are argue that there is far greater power in the Cooperative Model, aka Sidley's misnamed voluntary model, we currently have than people are acknowledging. This is especially so with the many improvements we have been discussing. As we have seen on occasion when enough of us work together, the multistakeholder process can force the Board/Staff's hand. I think people exagerate the power exercised by the NTIA and its threat of contract non-renewal. Also remember that we will still have a possible RFP event; the IANA Functions Review and the Separation Cross Community WG can serve as the same forcing function if that is the only sort of thing that convinces corporate ICANN. Not only will be able to use the combined stakeholder power to force issues as we done before, we will still have the whole pro intergovernmental crowd waiting for us to fail so that they save the day at the ITU or some other IGO. That should be enough to inspire us. If it doesn't, I do not see how something dragging through the courts for years will make much of a difference. As I have argued before, I think the whole membership route offers first a set of delays while we try to agree on it with the Board, and then allows for a new set of accountability holes we have yet to fully explore or discover - my greatest concern. I believe we are rushing into someting I think we just don't need for the transition. But if we go with a membership model as so many insist, I believe that only one where the SO or AC is the UA should be considered. avri On 15-Jun-15 03:03, Roelof Meijer wrote:
Keith,
I wonder if with "If a future ICANN Board were to jump the tracks, the
community will no longer have the NTIA backstop. Without legal
enforceability, the community would have to trust future ICANN Boards
and trust future California Attorney Generals. youre not
oversimplifying or over-contrasting between the situation with legal
enforceability and without.
I think that in a situation where the board jump the track, the
community ultimately goes through its process to spill the board and
the board refuses to go, that board would be paralyzed in all ways,
face shame and defamation individually on a global scale and would
ruin their personal careers completely.
They would dimply not do that.
Best,
Roelof
From: <Drazek>, Keith Drazek <kdrazek@verisign.com
<mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com>>
Date: zondag 14 juni 2015 03:52
To: Chris Disspain <ceo@auda.org.au <mailto:ceo@auda.org.au>>
Cc: "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] [Acct-Legal] Memo - Revised Powers Chart,
Voluntary Model
Chris,
NTIA's current enforcement powers are indirect but very real. Through
its existing ability to re-bid the IANA Functions contract, NTIA
ensures that ICANN and its Board of Directors remain true to its
bylaws. That unique role is set to change.
If a future ICANN Board were to jump the tracks, the community will no
longer have the NTIA backstop. Without legal enforceability, the
community would have to trust future ICANN Boards and trust future
California Attorney Generals. Why shouldn't we instead trust the
global multi-stakeholder community itself?
If a future ICANN community were to try to spill the board, wouldn't
we want that consensus decision to be legally enforceable? Or do we
want to allow a future Board to tell the community it was wrong and,
claiming fiduciary responsibility to the corporation, reject the decision?
Ultimately, we're deciding whether authority should rest with the
ICANN Board and the California AG, or with the ICANN community and the
California AG.
I'm in favor of the latter.
Regards,
Keith
On Jun 13, 2015, at 6:08 PM, Chris Disspain <ceo@auda.org.au
<mailto:ceo@auda.org.au>> wrote:
Hi Paul,
I was specifically responding to Keiths point so hardly a non-sequitur.
Cheers,
Chris
On 14 Jun 2015, at 02:29 , Paul Rosenzweig
<paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com
<mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com>> wrote:
Chris
We need more formal powers for the community because much of the
power of the NTIA was informal. The only thing that could replace
the NTIA precisely would be the NTIA. I get that you don't like the
membership model. But asking why a non-governmental solution is
different from a governmental one is just a non sequitur.
Paul
--
Sent from myMail app for Android
Friday, 12 June 2015, 11:12PM -04:00 from Chris Disspain
<ceo@auda.org.au <mailto:ceo@auda.org.au>>:
Greetings All,
1. on Beckys comment below: if that is correct then surely the
same applies to the relationship between the SO/AC and its
Unincorporated Association. If a court cannot enforce a Board
spill by the SOs/ACs then a court can also not make the UA do
what the SO or AC wants. Can it?
2. on Keiths comment below: How does the NTIA currently have
powers of enforcement over ICANN outside of matters covered in
the IANA contract? If NTIA was/is prepared to enter into an
Affirmation of Commitment with ICANN which can be terminated by
either party and is not legally enforceable, why should we
insist on a higher standard?
Cheers,
Chris
On 13 Jun 2015, at 02:05 , Drazek, Keith <kdrazek@verisign.com
<x-msg://e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3akdrazek@verisign.com>>
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.
Isnt that the definition of transitioning the United States
government (in its various forms) out of its unique role?
After NTIA disengages, dont we want the community to have
shared authority for enforcement, rather than leaving it to the
California Attorney General alone?
Regards,
Keith
*From:* accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org
<x-msg://e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3aaccountability%2dcross%2dcommu nity%2dbounces@icann.org> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org
<x-msg://e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3aaccountability%2dcross%2dcommu nity%2dbounces@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 SOs are legal entities doesnt 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
<x-msg://e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3abecky.burr@neustar.biz> / http://www.neustar.biz
*From: *Roelof Meijer <Roelof.Meijer@sidn.nl
<x-msg://e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3aRoelof.Meijer@sidn.nl>>
*Date: *Friday, June 12, 2015 at 8:18 AM
*To: *Accountability Community
<accountability-cross-community@icann.org
<x-msg://e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3aaccountability%2dcross%2dcommu nity@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/ACs, 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 SOs are legal entities, many members of ACs
are too, couldnt 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
<x-msg://e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3ajhofheimer@sidley.com>>
*Date: *donderdag 11 juni 2015 06:09
*To: *"ccwg-accountability5@icann.org
<x-msg://e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3accwg%2daccountability5@icann.o rg>"
<ccwg-accountability5@icann.org
<x-msg://e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3accwg%2daccountability5@icann.o rg>>
*Cc: *Sidley ICANN CCWG <sidleyicannccwg@sidley.com
<x-msg://e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3asidleyicannccwg@sidley.com>>,
ICANN-Adler <ICANN@adlercolvin.com
<x-msg://e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3aICANN@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
<x-msg://e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3ajhofheimer@sidley.com>
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.sidley.com_&d=AwMF- g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=Q OhQjQwFElYq1-xAGs6TVUWxpVd3OZaCVRq9bV-0pUg&s=8g0nj7XBKequ4xTeqTLzy3EvyRZsOpZ lGqNG7PIfFS4&e=>
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&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=Q OhQjQwFElYq1-xAGs6TVUWxpVd3OZaCVRq9bV-0pUg&s=8g0nj7XBKequ4xTeqTLzy3EvyRZsOpZ lGqNG7PIfFS4&e=> *SIDLEY
AUSTIN LLP*
*From:*ccwg-accountability5-bounces@icann.org
<x-msg://e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3accwg%2daccountability5%2dbounc es@icann.org> [mailto:ccwg-accountability5-bounces@icann.org
<x-msg://e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3accwg%2daccountability5%2dbounc es@icann.org>] *On
Behalf Of *Hilton, Tyler
*Sent:* Monday, June 08, 2015 8:29 PM
*To:* ccwg-accountability5@icann.org
<x-msg://e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3accwg%2daccountability5@icann.o rg>
*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
<x-msg://e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3athilton@sidley.com>
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.sidley.com&d=AwMF-g &c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=QO hQjQwFElYq1-xAGs6TVUWxpVd3OZaCVRq9bV-0pUg&s=RZAttuK9gIR-rWhgnzzBCJwmd-AX6TvL B6W-cfwGyV4&e=>
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&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=Q OhQjQwFElYq1-xAGs6TVUWxpVd3OZaCVRq9bV-0pUg&s=8g0nj7XBKequ4xTeqTLzy3EvyRZsOpZ lGqNG7PIfFS4&e=> *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
<x-msg://e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3aAccountability%2dCross%2dCommu nity@icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org
<x-msg://1/compose?To=Accountability%2dCross%2dCommunity@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
_______________________________________________
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 --- Ce courrier électronique ne contient aucun virus ou logiciel malveillant parce que la protection avast! Antivirus est active. https://www.avast.com/antivirus