Here are my notes as outlined at the meeting, for the record: 1. We focused on IRP, because PTI would end up in an IRP. 2. IRP enforcement process is the same regardless of the model. If after arbitration award is granted, losing party objects, prevailing party must go to court for enforcement of arbitration award 3. In both models there is a legal person - the sole designator or member - that can be party to IRP if required. 4. In either model, fiduciary duties are important and have the effect of limiting the scope of what can be arbitrated in an IRP setting. 5. In the member model the board is limited in asserting that its action was protected as a fiduciary business judgment as to community powers reserved to the sole member. (That is, the scope of issues properly subject to arbitration is therefore broader in member model.) 6. Preferences were split among those present between the two models. 7. My personal preference on this dimension angles slightly towards the member model, because it provides for stronger enforceability of the community powers through the IRP or generally - that is, as said, it does that by removing the possibility of ICANN arguing that enforcement of those powers conflicts with fiduciary duties and so cannot be arbitrated. -- Jordan Carter Chief Executive *InternetNZ* +64-4-495-2118 (office) | +64-21-442-649 (mob) Email: jordan@internetnz.net.nz Skype: jordancarter Web: www.internetnz.nz *A better world through a better Internet *