Seun, Yes, probably premature for “erroneous”, however the first challenge to a “new structure” on Fadi’s foil was: “New structure with legal authority to change any and all bylaws” The Community did not ask for this, and opinion from Sidley was: “Sole Member would have statutory right under California law to initiate or adopt bylaws amendments on its own, but the exercise of this right could be practically curtailed through internal Sole Member mechanisms.” So one question would be if Jones Day agrees or disagrees with this opinion. Mike From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Seun Ojedeji Sent: Thursday, October 1, 2015 6:14 AM To: Jordan Carter Cc: accountability-cross-community@icann.org Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Lawyers' Meeting on Friday While I wish Bruce wisdom in answering your question. I don't understand how you conclude that it's erroneous. From my "very" little understanding of law, there are more than one way to achieve a goal and none of them lacks consequences (disadvantage). We have requested CCWG legal to provide their view about board proposal, I don't know what is more useful than that document produced(unless we don't trust CCWG legal as well). I mean, how differently would we have responded by seeing the notes other than the way we have to board's proposal That said, this does not mean I am discouraging transparency but just to indicate that our answer/solution to settle the current disagreement is most likely not in those notes. Regards Sent from my Asus Zenfone2 Kindly excuse brevity and typos. On 1 Oct 2015 10:24, "Jordan Carter" <jordan@internetnz.net.nz<mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz>> wrote: Hi Bruce What advice has Jones Day or ICANN's in house legal team given to the Board - either directly or through management - or directly to management - that has led to erroneous conclusions regarding whether or not the decisions to exercise powers on the part of a member can be constrained or not? Such erroneous conclusions were evident from the comments of some board members in Los Angeles. Can that advise or a summary of it be shared with the CCWG? Thanks Jordan On Thursday, 1 October 2015, Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au<mailto:Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au>> wrote: Hello Farzaneh,
I understand that the Board has made the Jones Day impact assessment available. But in a note it states that it has had discussions with advisors and staff. I would also like to request for any document that the Board has received in its discussion with the advisors and staff and notes of the deliberation of their meetings.
Yes our intent is to make all documents available. So far the only one that I am aware of is the Jones Day analysis that was published. We received verbal briefings form the Advisors to the CCWG (https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/Advisors) , and I understand these advisors also gave verbal briefings to the CCWG, as well as any written comments they have posted to the public comments forum. Regards, Bruce Tonkin _______________________________________________ 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 +64-21-442-649<tel:%2B64-21-442-649> | jordan@internetnz.net.nz<mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz> Sent on the run, apologies for brevity _______________________________________________ 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