Board comments now in
hi all You may be interested to read the comments from the ICANN board which have now been lodged: http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-ccwg-accountability-03aug15/msg00045.h... I'd draw your attention to the cover note / summary and to the memo on the MEM. It's good to see some concrete proposals from the Board to take into account as we refine the proposal. An initial observation - there is a lot of detail that would need to be developed if the alternative proposal was to be complete enough to undergo stress testing, based on an initial scan. Happy reading! Cheers Jordan -- Jordan Carter Chief Executive, InternetNZ +64-21-442-649 | jordan@internetnz.net.nz Sent on the run, apologies for brevity
Hi Jordan, I don't think there is so much details to develop than what we currently have with the sole member (which by the way also requires a lot of details). I think the main question we need to ask the CCWG legal is whether the leadership of the SO/AC(for instance) can indeed have legal standing under the California law. Every other aspect of MEM seem to make sense to me and just the clarity on the possibility of enforcement is what lawyers needs to come in on. Perhaps it's also good to note that what is being proposed by board has been discussed one way or the other in the past but somehow we did not follow-up on the thoughts up. Regards Sent from my Asus Zenfone2 Kindly excuse brevity and typos. hi all You may be interested to read the comments from the ICANN board which have now been lodged: http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-ccwg-accountability-03aug15/msg00045.h... I'd draw your attention to the cover note / summary and to the memo on the MEM. It's good to see some concrete proposals from the Board to take into account as we refine the proposal. An initial observation - there is a lot of detail that would need to be developed if the alternative proposal was to be complete enough to undergo stress testing, based on an initial scan. Happy reading! Cheers Jordan -- Jordan Carter Chief Executive, InternetNZ +64-21-442-649 | jordan@internetnz.net.nz Sent on the run, apologies for brevity _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Dear Seun With respect, you can’t be serious. The Board’s alternate proposal is a 3-page memo. The CCWG’s proposal is an integrated 180 page documents which, even if you limit yourself to the parts directly related to the Single Member model (not including stress tests, or the fundamental bylaws themselves) is roughly 8-10x as long (depending on how you count it) …. Paul Paul Rosenzweig <mailto:paul.rosenzweigesq@redbranchconsulting.com> paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com O: +1 (202) 547-0660 M: +1 (202) 329-9650 VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066 <http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article...> Link to my PGP Key From: Seun Ojedeji [mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, September 11, 2015 9:40 PM To: Jordan Carter <jordan@internetnz.net.nz> Cc: Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Board comments now in Hi Jordan, I don't think there is so much details to develop than what we currently have with the sole member (which by the way also requires a lot of details). I think the main question we need to ask the CCWG legal is whether the leadership of the SO/AC(for instance) can indeed have legal standing under the California law. Every other aspect of MEM seem to make sense to me and just the clarity on the possibility of enforcement is what lawyers needs to come in on. Perhaps it's also good to note that what is being proposed by board has been discussed one way or the other in the past but somehow we did not follow-up on the thoughts up. Regards Sent from my Asus Zenfone2 Kindly excuse brevity and typos. hi all You may be interested to read the comments from the ICANN board which have now been lodged: http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-ccwg-accountability-03aug15/msg00045.h... I'd draw your attention to the cover note / summary and to the memo on the MEM. It's good to see some concrete proposals from the Board to take into account as we refine the proposal. An initial observation - there is a lot of detail that would need to be developed if the alternative proposal was to be complete enough to undergo stress testing, based on an initial scan. Happy reading! Cheers Jordan -- 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
Ah…so, clearly, size does matter….to some….. With respect, you can’t be serious. Cheers, Chris
On 12 Sep 2015, at 21:50 , Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> wrote:
Dear Seun
With respect, you can’t be serious. The Board’s alternate proposal is a 3-page memo. The CCWG’s proposal is an integrated 180 page documents which, even if you limit yourself to the parts directly related to the Single Member model (not including stress tests, or the fundamental bylaws themselves) is roughly 8-10x as long (depending on how you count it) ….
Paul
Paul Rosenzweig paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com <mailto:paul.rosenzweigesq@redbranchconsulting.com> O: +1 (202) 547-0660 M: +1 (202) 329-9650 VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066 Link to my PGP Key <http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article...>
From: Seun Ojedeji [mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com <mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com>] Sent: Friday, September 11, 2015 9:40 PM To: Jordan Carter <jordan@internetnz.net.nz <mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz>> Cc: Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Board comments now in
Hi Jordan,
I don't think there is so much details to develop than what we currently have with the sole member (which by the way also requires a lot of details).
I think the main question we need to ask the CCWG legal is whether the leadership of the SO/AC(for instance) can indeed have legal standing under the California law. Every other aspect of MEM seem to make sense to me and just the clarity on the possibility of enforcement is what lawyers needs to come in on.
Perhaps it's also good to note that what is being proposed by board has been discussed one way or the other in the past but somehow we did not follow-up on the thoughts up.
Regards
Sent from my Asus Zenfone2 Kindly excuse brevity and typos.
hi all
You may be interested to read the comments from the ICANN board which have now been lodged:
http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-ccwg-accountability-03aug15/msg00045.h... <http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-ccwg-accountability-03aug15/msg00045.h...>
I'd draw your attention to the cover note / summary and to the memo on the MEM.
It's good to see some concrete proposals from the Board to take into account as we refine the proposal.
An initial observation - there is a lot of detail that would need to be developed if the alternative proposal was to be complete enough to undergo stress testing, based on an initial scan.
Happy reading!
Cheers Jordan
-- 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 <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 <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community>
With respect Chris, I am deeply serious. The board’s commitment to the multi-stakeholder model is not. And as for “size” when it reflects depth of analysis, yes … it usually does matter. Glibness is easy when brevity is the goal. Thoughtful consideration requires extended analysis. A CCWG process that has gone on for nearly a year and involved 100s of members of the community in meeting taking place across the globe and tens of thousands of man hours does, actually, produce a proposal that has the consensus of the Community. The Board’s brief “we don’t like it and here is our three page counter proposal” does not deserve our respect. Paul Paul Rosenzweig <mailto:paul.rosenzweigesq@redbranchconsulting.com> paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com O: +1 (202) 547-0660 M: +1 (202) 329-9650 VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066 <http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article...> Link to my PGP Key From: Chris Disspain [mailto:ceo@auda.org.au] Sent: Saturday, September 12, 2015 8:20 AM To: Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> Cc: Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Board comments now in Ah…so, clearly, size does matter….to some….. With respect, you can’t be serious. Cheers, Chris On 12 Sep 2015, at 21:50 , Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com <mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> > wrote: Dear Seun With respect, you can’t be serious. The Board’s alternate proposal is a 3-page memo. The CCWG’s proposal is an integrated 180 page documents which, even if you limit yourself to the parts directly related to the Single Member model (not including stress tests, or the fundamental bylaws themselves) is roughly 8-10x as long (depending on how you count it) …. Paul Paul Rosenzweig <mailto:paul.rosenzweigesq@redbranchconsulting.com> paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com O: +1 (202) 547-0660 M: +1 (202) 329-9650 VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066 <http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article...> Link to my PGP Key From: Seun Ojedeji [ <mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, September 11, 2015 9:40 PM To: Jordan Carter < <mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz> jordan@internetnz.net.nz> Cc: Accountability Cross Community < <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Board comments now in Hi Jordan, I don't think there is so much details to develop than what we currently have with the sole member (which by the way also requires a lot of details). I think the main question we need to ask the CCWG legal is whether the leadership of the SO/AC(for instance) can indeed have legal standing under the California law. Every other aspect of MEM seem to make sense to me and just the clarity on the possibility of enforcement is what lawyers needs to come in on. Perhaps it's also good to note that what is being proposed by board has been discussed one way or the other in the past but somehow we did not follow-up on the thoughts up. Regards Sent from my Asus Zenfone2 Kindly excuse brevity and typos. hi all You may be interested to read the comments from the ICANN board which have now been lodged: <http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-ccwg-accountability-03aug15/msg00045.h...> http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-ccwg-accountability-03aug15/msg00045.h... I'd draw your attention to the cover note / summary and to the memo on the MEM. It's good to see some concrete proposals from the Board to take into account as we refine the proposal. An initial observation - there is a lot of detail that would need to be developed if the alternative proposal was to be complete enough to undergo stress testing, based on an initial scan. Happy reading! Cheers Jordan -- Jordan Carter Chief Executive, InternetNZ <tel:%2B64-21-442-649> +64-21-442-649 | <mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz> jordan@internetnz.net.nz Sent on the run, apologies for brevity _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Chris, Paul It is my personal view that since ATRT1 the community has been asking for a better specific "rationale" of Boards decisions. Not longer or shorter, but BETTER and coming from the Board (or Committee) itself (consensus or not);and NOT from Staff (outside counsel) si the community has a better understanding of the decisions (or proposal). This question to me in this case has been framed in terms of "enforcibilty" and the risk of capture of the single member as per the memo. I look forward to my next half day in airports and flights to look for the RATIONALE of these two very significant arguments. Have a nice weekend you both. Carlos Raúl On Sep 12, 2015 9:31 AM, "Paul Rosenzweig" < paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> wrote:
With respect Chris, I am deeply serious. The board’s commitment to the multi-stakeholder model is not.
And as for “size” when it reflects depth of analysis, yes … it usually does matter. Glibness is easy when brevity is the goal. Thoughtful consideration requires extended analysis.
A CCWG process that has gone on for nearly a year and involved 100s of members of the community in meeting taking place across the globe and tens of thousands of man hours does, actually, produce a proposal that has the consensus of the Community. The Board’s brief “we don’t like it and here is our three page counter proposal” does not deserve our respect.
Paul
Paul Rosenzweig
paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com <paul.rosenzweigesq@redbranchconsulting.com>
O: +1 (202) 547-0660
M: +1 (202) 329-9650
VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739
Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066
Link to my PGP Key <http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article...>
*From:* Chris Disspain [mailto:ceo@auda.org.au] *Sent:* Saturday, September 12, 2015 8:20 AM *To:* Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> *Cc:* Accountability Cross Community < accountability-cross-community@icann.org> *Subject:* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Board comments now in
Ah…so, clearly, size does matter….to some…..
With respect, you can’t be serious.
Cheers,
Chris
On 12 Sep 2015, at 21:50 , Paul Rosenzweig < paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> wrote:
Dear Seun
With respect, you can’t be serious. The Board’s alternate proposal is a 3-page memo. The CCWG’s proposal is an integrated 180 page documents which, even if you limit yourself to the parts directly related to the Single Member model (not including stress tests, or the fundamental bylaws themselves) is roughly 8-10x as long (depending on how you count it) ….
Paul
Paul Rosenzweig
paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com <paul.rosenzweigesq@redbranchconsulting.com>
O: +1 (202) 547-0660
M: +1 (202) 329-9650
VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739
Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066
Link to my PGP Key <http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article...>
*From:* Seun Ojedeji [mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com>] *Sent:* Friday, September 11, 2015 9:40 PM *To:* Jordan Carter <jordan@internetnz.net.nz> *Cc:* Accountability Cross Community < accountability-cross-community@icann.org> *Subject:* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Board comments now in
Hi Jordan,
I don't think there is so much details to develop than what we currently have with the sole member (which by the way also requires a lot of details).
I think the main question we need to ask the CCWG legal is whether the leadership of the SO/AC(for instance) can indeed have legal standing under the California law. Every other aspect of MEM seem to make sense to me and just the clarity on the possibility of enforcement is what lawyers needs to come in on.
Perhaps it's also good to note that what is being proposed by board has been discussed one way or the other in the past but somehow we did not follow-up on the thoughts up.
Regards
Sent from my Asus Zenfone2 Kindly excuse brevity and typos.
hi all
You may be interested to read the comments from the ICANN board which have now been lodged:
http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-ccwg-accountability-03aug15/msg00045.h...
I'd draw your attention to the cover note / summary and to the memo on the MEM.
It's good to see some concrete proposals from the Board to take into account as we refine the proposal.
An initial observation - there is a lot of detail that would need to be developed if the alternative proposal was to be complete enough to undergo stress testing, based on an initial scan.
Happy reading!
Cheers
Jordan
-- Jordan Carter Chief Executive, InternetNZ
+64-21-442-649 | jordan@internetnz.net.nz
Sent on the run, apologies for brevity
_______________________________________________ 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
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Glibness is easy when brevity is the goal. Thoughtful consideration requires extended analysis.
Then, perhaps, instead of responding to Seun in the way you did, it might have been more considered to be less glib and more thoughtful.
...I am deeply serious. The board’s commitment to the multi-stakeholder model is not.
You are entitled to your opinion but it is an opinion not a fact. Commitment to the multistakeholder model is demonstrated in many ways. In my case, my serious belief in and my commitment to the multistakeholder model is tested regularly by my peers, who elect me. Yours?
The Board’s brief “we don’t like it and here is our three page counter proposal” does not deserve our respect.
It is disappointing that you appear to prefer to use glib rhetoric rather than provide a considered view having thoughtfully read and analysed the documents. Cheers, Chris
On 12 Sep 2015, at 23:30 , Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> wrote:
With respect Chris, I am deeply serious. The board’s commitment to the multi-stakeholder model is not.
And as for “size” when it reflects depth of analysis, yes … it usually does matter. Glibness is easy when brevity is the goal. Thoughtful consideration requires extended analysis.
A CCWG process that has gone on for nearly a year and involved 100s of members of the community in meeting taking place across the globe and tens of thousands of man hours does, actually, produce a proposal that has the consensus of the Community. The Board’s brief “we don’t like it and here is our three page counter proposal” does not deserve our respect.
Paul
Paul Rosenzweig paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com <mailto:paul.rosenzweigesq@redbranchconsulting.com> O: +1 (202) 547-0660 M: +1 (202) 329-9650 VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066 Link to my PGP Key <http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article...>
From: Chris Disspain [mailto:ceo@auda.org.au <mailto:ceo@auda.org.au>] Sent: Saturday, September 12, 2015 8:20 AM To: Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com <mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com>> Cc: Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Board comments now in
Ah…so, clearly, size does matter….to some…..
With respect, you can’t be serious.
Cheers,
Chris
On 12 Sep 2015, at 21:50 , Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com <mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com>> wrote:
Dear Seun
With respect, you can’t be serious. The Board’s alternate proposal is a 3-page memo. The CCWG’s proposal is an integrated 180 page documents which, even if you limit yourself to the parts directly related to the Single Member model (not including stress tests, or the fundamental bylaws themselves) is roughly 8-10x as long (depending on how you count it) ….
Paul
Paul Rosenzweig paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com <mailto:paul.rosenzweigesq@redbranchconsulting.com> O: +1 (202) 547-0660 M: +1 (202) 329-9650 VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066 Link to my PGP Key <http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article...>
From: Seun Ojedeji [mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com <mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com>] Sent: Friday, September 11, 2015 9:40 PM To: Jordan Carter <jordan@internetnz.net.nz <mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz>> Cc: Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Board comments now in
Hi Jordan, I don't think there is so much details to develop than what we currently have with the sole member (which by the way also requires a lot of details). I think the main question we need to ask the CCWG legal is whether the leadership of the SO/AC(for instance) can indeed have legal standing under the California law. Every other aspect of MEM seem to make sense to me and just the clarity on the possibility of enforcement is what lawyers needs to come in on. Perhaps it's also good to note that what is being proposed by board has been discussed one way or the other in the past but somehow we did not follow-up on the thoughts up. Regards Sent from my Asus Zenfone2 Kindly excuse brevity and typos. hi all
You may be interested to read the comments from the ICANN board which have now been lodged:
http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-ccwg-accountability-03aug15/msg00045.h... <http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-ccwg-accountability-03aug15/msg00045.h...>
I'd draw your attention to the cover note / summary and to the memo on the MEM.
It's good to see some concrete proposals from the Board to take into account as we refine the proposal.
An initial observation - there is a lot of detail that would need to be developed if the alternative proposal was to be complete enough to undergo stress testing, based on an initial scan.
Happy reading!
Cheers Jordan
-- 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 <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 <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community>
No Chris. In my opinion, commitment to multistakeholder model is demonstrated by action not election. In response to Seun, unfortunately it is not that simple Seun. We have discussed the exact arbitration mechanism that the board is presenting as a "new" mechanism, in CCWG.The community did not ignore the possibility of arbitration. One problem as Becky Burr said in CCWG-ACCT w/ ICANN Board - ICANN 53 (21 June) , is that the governments might not be willing to accept entering into a binding arbitration, and above all they might not be able to enter into such binding arbitration agreement. On 13 September 2015 at 01:16, Chris Disspain <ceo@auda.org.au> wrote:
Glibness is easy when brevity is the goal. Thoughtful consideration requires extended analysis.
Then, perhaps, instead of responding to Seun in the way you did, it might have been more considered to be less glib and more thoughtful.
...I am deeply serious. The board’s commitment to the multi-stakeholder model is not.
You are entitled to your opinion but it is an opinion not a fact. Commitment to the multistakeholder model is demonstrated in many ways. In my case, my serious belief in and my commitment to the multistakeholder model is tested regularly by my peers, who elect me. Yours?
The Board’s brief “we don’t like it and here is our three page counter proposal” does not deserve our respect.
It is disappointing that you appear to prefer to use glib rhetoric rather than provide a considered view having thoughtfully read and analysed the documents.
Cheers,
Chris
On 12 Sep 2015, at 23:30 , Paul Rosenzweig < paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> wrote:
With respect Chris, I am deeply serious. The board’s commitment to the multi-stakeholder model is not.
And as for “size” when it reflects depth of analysis, yes … it usually does matter. Glibness is easy when brevity is the goal. Thoughtful consideration requires extended analysis.
A CCWG process that has gone on for nearly a year and involved 100s of members of the community in meeting taking place across the globe and tens of thousands of man hours does, actually, produce a proposal that has the consensus of the Community. The Board’s brief “we don’t like it and here is our three page counter proposal” does not deserve our respect.
Paul
Paul Rosenzweig paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com <paul.rosenzweigesq@redbranchconsulting.com> O: +1 (202) 547-0660 M: +1 (202) 329-9650 VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066 Link to my PGP Key <http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article...>
*From:* Chris Disspain [mailto:ceo@auda.org.au <ceo@auda.org.au>] *Sent:* Saturday, September 12, 2015 8:20 AM *To:* Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> *Cc:* Accountability Cross Community < accountability-cross-community@icann.org> *Subject:* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Board comments now in
Ah…so, clearly, size does matter….to some…..
With respect, you can’t be serious.
Cheers,
Chris
On 12 Sep 2015, at 21:50 , Paul Rosenzweig < paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> wrote:
Dear Seun
With respect, you can’t be serious. The Board’s alternate proposal is a 3-page memo. The CCWG’s proposal is an integrated 180 page documents which, even if you limit yourself to the parts directly related to the Single Member model (not including stress tests, or the fundamental bylaws themselves) is roughly 8-10x as long (depending on how you count it) ….
Paul
Paul Rosenzweig paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com <paul.rosenzweigesq@redbranchconsulting.com> O: +1 (202) 547-0660 M: +1 (202) 329-9650 VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066 Link to my PGP Key <http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article...>
*From:* Seun Ojedeji [mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com>] *Sent:* Friday, September 11, 2015 9:40 PM *To:* Jordan Carter <jordan@internetnz.net.nz> *Cc:* Accountability Cross Community < accountability-cross-community@icann.org> *Subject:* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Board comments now in
Hi Jordan, I don't think there is so much details to develop than what we currently have with the sole member (which by the way also requires a lot of details). I think the main question we need to ask the CCWG legal is whether the leadership of the SO/AC(for instance) can indeed have legal standing under the California law. Every other aspect of MEM seem to make sense to me and just the clarity on the possibility of enforcement is what lawyers needs to come in on. Perhaps it's also good to note that what is being proposed by board has been discussed one way or the other in the past but somehow we did not follow-up on the thoughts up. Regards Sent from my Asus Zenfone2 Kindly excuse brevity and typos. hi all
You may be interested to read the comments from the ICANN board which have now been lodged:
http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-ccwg-accountability-03aug15/msg00045.h...
I'd draw your attention to the cover note / summary and to the memo on the MEM.
It's good to see some concrete proposals from the Board to take into account as we refine the proposal.
An initial observation - there is a lot of detail that would need to be developed if the alternative proposal was to be complete enough to undergo stress testing, based on an initial scan.
Happy reading!
Cheers Jordan
-- Jordan Carter Chief Executive, InternetNZ +64-21-442-649 | jordan@internetnz.net.nz Sent on the run, apologies for brevity
_______________________________________________ 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
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
-- Farzaneh
Hello Farzaneh,
governments might not be willing to accept entering into a binding arbitration, and above all they might not be able to enter into such binding arbitration agreement.
I have heard this argument too. I think there may be some misunderstanding about who is “bound” by the arbitration. In my view the intent of the arbitration is to decide if the Board followed its bylaws, and then bind ICANN into the outcome of that arbitration decision. We are not making a decision on whether Governments are right or wrong, or binding them to the outcome of that decision in any way. Governments are of course free to pass national laws or enter into treaties between themselves on any topic they choose to raise. Nothing we do binds them in any way. Regards, Bruce Tonkin
Chris, while I agree with you as far as you personally are concerned, this has most certainly not been true for many if not most previous ccNSO (s)elected members of the Board. And as you know, in the case of your current colleague, the jury is in. Re-elections of ccNSO Board members are mere formalities. So I do not think we should make the exception the norm but develop something more robust. el -- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini
On Sep 13, 2015, at 01:16, Chris Disspain <ceo@auda.org.au> wrote:
[...]
Commitment to the multistakeholder model is demonstrated in many ways. In my case, my serious belief in and my commitment to the multistakeholder model is tested regularly by my peers, who elect me. [...]
Chris, my professional opinion is that more than size it matters how you wield it :-)-O el -- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini
On Sep 12, 2015, at 14:19, Chris Disspain <ceo@auda.org.au> wrote:
Ah…so, clearly, size does matter….to some…..
With respect, you can’t be serious.
Cheers,
Chris
On 12 Sep 2015, at 21:50 , Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> wrote:
Dear Seun
With respect, you can’t be serious. The Board’s alternate proposal is a 3-page memo. The CCWG’s proposal is an integrated 180 page documents which, even if you limit yourself to the parts directly related to the Single Member model (not including stress tests, or the fundamental bylaws themselves) is roughly 8-10x as long (depending on how you count it) ….
Paul
Paul Rosenzweig paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com O: +1 (202) 547-0660 M: +1 (202) 329-9650 VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066 Link to my PGP Key
From: Seun Ojedeji [mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, September 11, 2015 9:40 PM To: Jordan Carter <jordan@internetnz.net.nz> Cc: Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Board comments now in
Hi Jordan,
I don't think there is so much details to develop than what we currently have with the sole member (which by the way also requires a lot of details).
I think the main question we need to ask the CCWG legal is whether the leadership of the SO/AC(for instance) can indeed have legal standing under the California law. Every other aspect of MEM seem to make sense to me and just the clarity on the possibility of enforcement is what lawyers needs to come in on.
Perhaps it's also good to note that what is being proposed by board has been discussed one way or the other in the past but somehow we did not follow-up on the thoughts up.
Regards
Sent from my Asus Zenfone2 Kindly excuse brevity and typos.
hi all
You may be interested to read the comments from the ICANN board which have now been lodged:
http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-ccwg-accountability-03aug15/msg00045.h...
I'd draw your attention to the cover note / summary and to the memo on the MEM.
It's good to see some concrete proposals from the Board to take into account as we refine the proposal.
An initial observation - there is a lot of detail that would need to be developed if the alternative proposal was to be complete enough to undergo stress testing, based on an initial scan.
Happy reading!
Cheers Jordan
-- Jordan Carter Chief Executive, InternetNZ +64-21-442-649 | jordan@internetnz.net.nz
Sent on the run, apologies for brevity
_______________________________________________ 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
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Dear colleagues, May I respectfully suggest all that we could spend our time more usefully by assessing each comment's respective merits ? Understanding how they meet our requirements? I'm sure there's a lot to learn, and discuss. Best Mathieu Weill --------------- Depuis mon mobile, désolé pour le style
Le 12 sept. 2015 à 15:33, Dr Eberhard W Lisse <el@lisse.na> a écrit :
Chris,
my professional opinion is that more than size it matters how you wield it :-)-O
el
-- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini
On Sep 12, 2015, at 14:19, Chris Disspain <ceo@auda.org.au> wrote:
Ah…so, clearly, size does matter….to some…..
With respect, you can’t be serious.
Cheers,
Chris
On 12 Sep 2015, at 21:50 , Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> wrote:
Dear Seun
With respect, you can’t be serious. The Board’s alternate proposal is a 3-page memo. The CCWG’s proposal is an integrated 180 page documents which, even if you limit yourself to the parts directly related to the Single Member model (not including stress tests, or the fundamental bylaws themselves) is roughly 8-10x as long (depending on how you count it) ….
Paul
Paul Rosenzweig paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com O: +1 (202) 547-0660 M: +1 (202) 329-9650 VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066 Link to my PGP Key
From: Seun Ojedeji [mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, September 11, 2015 9:40 PM To: Jordan Carter <jordan@internetnz.net.nz> Cc: Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Board comments now in
Hi Jordan,
I don't think there is so much details to develop than what we currently have with the sole member (which by the way also requires a lot of details).
I think the main question we need to ask the CCWG legal is whether the leadership of the SO/AC(for instance) can indeed have legal standing under the California law. Every other aspect of MEM seem to make sense to me and just the clarity on the possibility of enforcement is what lawyers needs to come in on.
Perhaps it's also good to note that what is being proposed by board has been discussed one way or the other in the past but somehow we did not follow-up on the thoughts up.
Regards
Sent from my Asus Zenfone2 Kindly excuse brevity and typos.
hi all
You may be interested to read the comments from the ICANN board which have now been lodged:
http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-ccwg-accountability-03aug15/msg00045.h...
I'd draw your attention to the cover note / summary and to the memo on the MEM.
It's good to see some concrete proposals from the Board to take into account as we refine the proposal.
An initial observation - there is a lot of detail that would need to be developed if the alternative proposal was to be complete enough to undergo stress testing, based on an initial scan.
Happy reading!
Cheers Jordan
-- Jordan Carter Chief Executive, InternetNZ +64-21-442-649 | jordan@internetnz.net.nz
Sent on the run, apologies for brevity
_______________________________________________ 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
_______________________________________________ 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
Please feel free to spend your time any way you want. el -- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini
On Sep 12, 2015, at 15:57, Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr> wrote:
Dear colleagues,
May I respectfully suggest all that we could spend our time more usefully by assessing each comment's respective merits ? Understanding how they meet our requirements?
I'm sure there's a lot to learn, and discuss.
Best
Mathieu Weill --------------- Depuis mon mobile, désolé pour le style
Le 12 sept. 2015 à 15:33, Dr Eberhard W Lisse <el@lisse.na> a écrit :
Chris,
my professional opinion is that more than size it matters how you wield it :-)-O
el
-- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini
On Sep 12, 2015, at 14:19, Chris Disspain <ceo@auda.org.au> wrote:
Ah…so, clearly, size does matter….to some…..
With respect, you can’t be serious.
Cheers,
Chris
On 12 Sep 2015, at 21:50 , Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> wrote:
Dear Seun
With respect, you can’t be serious. The Board’s alternate proposal is a 3-page memo. The CCWG’s proposal is an integrated 180 page documents which, even if you limit yourself to the parts directly related to the Single Member model (not including stress tests, or the fundamental bylaws themselves) is roughly 8-10x as long (depending on how you count it) ….
Paul
Paul Rosenzweig paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com O: +1 (202) 547-0660 M: +1 (202) 329-9650 VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066 Link to my PGP Key
From: Seun Ojedeji [mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, September 11, 2015 9:40 PM To: Jordan Carter <jordan@internetnz.net.nz> Cc: Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Board comments now in
Hi Jordan,
I don't think there is so much details to develop than what we currently have with the sole member (which by the way also requires a lot of details).
I think the main question we need to ask the CCWG legal is whether the leadership of the SO/AC(for instance) can indeed have legal standing under the California law. Every other aspect of MEM seem to make sense to me and just the clarity on the possibility of enforcement is what lawyers needs to come in on.
Perhaps it's also good to note that what is being proposed by board has been discussed one way or the other in the past but somehow we did not follow-up on the thoughts up.
Regards
Sent from my Asus Zenfone2 Kindly excuse brevity and typos.
hi all
You may be interested to read the comments from the ICANN board which have now been lodged:
http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-ccwg-accountability-03aug15/msg00045.h...
I'd draw your attention to the cover note / summary and to the memo on the MEM.
It's good to see some concrete proposals from the Board to take into account as we refine the proposal.
An initial observation - there is a lot of detail that would need to be developed if the alternative proposal was to be complete enough to undergo stress testing, based on an initial scan.
Happy reading!
Cheers Jordan
-- Jordan Carter Chief Executive, InternetNZ +64-21-442-649 | jordan@internetnz.net.nz
Sent on the run, apologies for brevity
_______________________________________________ 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
_______________________________________________ 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
Seun, So basically its our fault and we didn’t follow through on the other options that were clearly the right ones because the board agrees with them (In part) now? So lets just let the adults (Board, Lawyers, CEO) figure it out? I’m sorry if thats not the right characterisation but thats certainly the undertones in some of the comments that I have been hearing. The CCWG arrived at the powers, the model, the enforcement criteria, the stress tests and the proposal through a bottom up process where everyone looked at the options in front of us and through sweat and tears came to an agreed proposal for all of the above. I think to reduce all of that work down to something that can be turned over and replaced by a new model with less enforceability less power and less accountability at the last hurdle is to disregard the amount of work and consensus that was found during the process. There are a huge amount of details to be worked out in the counter-proposal (Which personally I still feel it is) that were the subject of weeks and months of discussions and debate and consensus building to get tour version of a proposal. The communities version. And let us remember that the board is one stakeholder amongst many, all of which will offer input that needs to be examined and cross referenced against our community proposal. And I think that yes we do have areas that we need to improve upon, and we will do so taking the best parts of the input from every stakeholder who has submitted comments. We can then be assured that we are travelling the right path and that the outcome of the CCWG will be well considered and reflective of the community collective intelligence. In my comments on the proposal I said: "The group should be proud of the work that we have achieved to date and hopeful for the work to come. When you can say that you have sat down at a table with human rights activists and intellectual property lawyers, governments and civil society groups, left wing think tanks and right wing think tanks, academics and business owners and that we have created something that reflects the opinions of everyone, that is in my opinion the most powerful proof of the ability of the multistakeholder process to excel in even the most challenging of circumstances.” And I stand over that, I think that the current proposal is an amazing example of what the multistakeholder process can achieve, but if we allow ourselves to be derailed from the path that we have finally agreed upon at the last minute we are throwing out the prime example that we have ourselves set for the broader community. Do we need to tweak aspects and flesh out other details? Of course! Do we need to take the boards position on board? I would certainly hope so. But do we need to stand aside and accept a model that is in my opinion directly at odds with the consensus of the community? I will be horribly disappointed in all of us if we do. Don’t let us fall at this last hurdle, lets keep going in the spirit of cooperation and consensus that we have been for months now and try and come to a place where we have communicated why we have chosen the model, the enforcement mechanisms and the core values of a future ICANN to all stakeholders and show why we believe that as the reflection of the communities will the current proposal is the best path forward. -James G On 12 Sep 2015, at 02:39, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com<mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com>> wrote: Hi Jordan, I don't think there is so much details to develop than what we currently have with the sole member (which by the way also requires a lot of details). I think the main question we need to ask the CCWG legal is whether the leadership of the SO/AC(for instance) can indeed have legal standing under the California law. Every other aspect of MEM seem to make sense to me and just the clarity on the possibility of enforcement is what lawyers needs to come in on. Perhaps it's also good to note that what is being proposed by board has been discussed one way or the other in the past but somehow we did not follow-up on the thoughts up. Regards Sent from my Asus Zenfone2 Kindly excuse brevity and typos. hi all You may be interested to read the comments from the ICANN board which have now been lodged: http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-ccwg-accountability-03aug15/msg00045.h... I'd draw your attention to the cover note / summary and to the memo on the MEM. It's good to see some concrete proposals from the Board to take into account as we refine the proposal. An initial observation - there is a lot of detail that would need to be developed if the alternative proposal was to be complete enough to undergo stress testing, based on an initial scan. Happy reading! Cheers Jordan -- 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 _______________________________________________ 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
On 12 Sep 2015, at 02:39, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> wrote: I think the main question we need to ask the CCWG legal is whether the leadership of the SO/AC(for instance) can indeed have legal standing under the California law. Every other aspect of MEM seem to make sense to me and just the clarity on the possibility of enforcement is what lawyers needs to come in on.
The Board's memo states: "Key characteristics of the MEM are: Binding Enforcement: In California, final decisions may be turned into enforceable court judgments. So an arbitration decision issued following an MEM proceeding can be enforced in a court in California. " My first question is "By whom?" Malcolm.
Hello Malcolm,
Binding Enforcement: In California, final decisions may be turned into enforceable court judgments. So an arbitration decision issued following an MEM proceeding can be enforced in a court in California. "
My first question is "By whom?"
As per FAQ question no. 13, the answer is The MEM Issue Group. This MEM Issue Group could be comprised of the individual people serving as chairs of the participating SOs/ACs. These individuals would have legal standing to initiate arbitration and have legal standing to enforce the outcome of the arbitration in court. ICANN will indemnify the MEM Issue Group, and will bear the fees and expenses that might be incurred in any lawsuit arising out of the enforcement of a MEM final arbitration decision. There are other options - but this seems to be the simplest. More elaborate options include forming an unincorporated association for the purpose of initiating the arbitration and then seeking to enforce in court if necessary (which I hope is never necessary - as any Board that I have been on would abide by the arbitration). I have attached the relevant docs for ease of reference. Regards, Bruce Tonkin
So Bruce - would they have legal standing as individuals? Or as an unincorporated association, that is, collectively? Relatedly - has the board analysed whether the model is viable without a membership approach given the obligations directors hold (fiduciary obligations) in a non-membership system? J On Sunday, 13 September 2015, Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au> wrote:
Hello Malcolm,
Binding Enforcement: In California, final decisions may be turned into enforceable court judgments. So an arbitration decision issued following an MEM proceeding can be enforced in a court in California. "
My first question is "By whom?"
As per FAQ question no. 13, the answer is The MEM Issue Group.
This MEM Issue Group could be comprised of the individual people serving as chairs of the participating SOs/ACs. These individuals would have legal standing to initiate arbitration and have legal standing to enforce the outcome of the arbitration in court.
ICANN will indemnify the MEM Issue Group, and will bear the fees and expenses that might be incurred in any lawsuit arising out of the enforcement of a MEM final arbitration decision.
There are other options - but this seems to be the simplest. More elaborate options include forming an unincorporated association for the purpose of initiating the arbitration and then seeking to enforce in court if necessary (which I hope is never necessary - as any Board that I have been on would abide by the arbitration).
I have attached the relevant docs for ease of reference.
Regards, Bruce Tonkin
-- Jordan Carter Chief Executive, InternetNZ +64-21-442-649 | jordan@internetnz.net.nz Sent on the run, apologies for brevity
Hi Jordan,
would they have legal standing as individuals? Or as an unincorporated association, that is, collectively?
Yes…either.
has the board analysed whether the model is viable without a membership approach given the obligations directors hold (fiduciary obligations) in a non-membership system?
Not sure I understand the question. Yes, the mechanism is viable without a membership approach but could you clarify what you mean regarding the obligations? Cheers, Chris
On 13 Sep 2015, at 12:31 , Jordan Carter <jordan@internetnz.net.nz> wrote:
So Bruce - would they have legal standing as individuals? Or as an unincorporated association, that is, collectively?
Relatedly - has the board analysed whether the model is viable without a membership approach given the obligations directors hold (fiduciary obligations) in a non-membership system?
J
On Sunday, 13 September 2015, Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au <mailto:Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au>> wrote: Hello Malcolm,
Binding Enforcement: In California, final decisions may be turned into enforceable court judgments. So an arbitration decision issued following an MEM proceeding can be enforced in a court in California. "
My first question is "By whom?"
As per FAQ question no. 13, the answer is The MEM Issue Group.
This MEM Issue Group could be comprised of the individual people serving as chairs of the participating SOs/ACs. These individuals would have legal standing to initiate arbitration and have legal standing to enforce the outcome of the arbitration in court.
ICANN will indemnify the MEM Issue Group, and will bear the fees and expenses that might be incurred in any lawsuit arising out of the enforcement of a MEM final arbitration decision.
There are other options - but this seems to be the simplest. More elaborate options include forming an unincorporated association for the purpose of initiating the arbitration and then seeking to enforce in court if necessary (which I hope is never necessary - as any Board that I have been on would abide by the arbitration).
I have attached the relevant docs for ease of reference.
Regards, Bruce Tonkin
-- Jordan Carter Chief Executive, InternetNZ +64-21-442-649 | 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 https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Hello Jordan, I am not a lawyer – but will provide my understanding at least.
So Bruce - would they have legal standing as individuals? Or as an unincorporated association, that is, collectively?
They would have legal standing as individuals. The individuals would be occupying roles in the bylaws – i.e. chairs of SOs and ACs. They would take action on behalf of the SOs and ACs, and have standing to legally enforce. In a similar way I have a role on the Board as a voting Board director – but I could enforce actions against the organization as an individual.
Relatedly - has the board analysed whether the model is viable without a membership approach given the obligations directors hold (fiduciary obligations) in a non-membership system?
I don’t understand the question. From my understanding Directors of a board have the same fiduciary obligations regardless of where it is membership or non-membership organization. The arbitration model I think could apply to either type of organization as well. Regards, Bruce Tonkin J On Sunday, 13 September 2015, Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au<mailto:Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au>> wrote: Hello Malcolm,
Binding Enforcement: In California, final decisions may be turned into enforceable court judgments. So an arbitration decision issued following an MEM proceeding can be enforced in a court in California. "
My first question is "By whom?"
As per FAQ question no. 13, the answer is The MEM Issue Group. This MEM Issue Group could be comprised of the individual people serving as chairs of the participating SOs/ACs. These individuals would have legal standing to initiate arbitration and have legal standing to enforce the outcome of the arbitration in court. ICANN will indemnify the MEM Issue Group, and will bear the fees and expenses that might be incurred in any lawsuit arising out of the enforcement of a MEM final arbitration decision. There are other options - but this seems to be the simplest. More elaborate options include forming an unincorporated association for the purpose of initiating the arbitration and then seeking to enforce in court if necessary (which I hope is never necessary - as any Board that I have been on would abide by the arbitration). I have attached the relevant docs for ease of reference. Regards, Bruce Tonkin -- Jordan Carter Chief Executive, InternetNZ +64-21-442-649 | jordan@internetnz.net.nz<mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz> Sent on the run, apologies for brevity
Thanks Bruce and Chris for responding to "our" questions/comments. I want to believe you are responding based on the legal analysis you may have carried out on the proposal. It is my hope that the CCWG would at least make an effort to also confirm the legal viability of the proposal as well. We ofcourse have a choice to reject what has been suggested but not just without convincing rationale. Perhaps we should remind ourselves that going member route was never the will of quite a number of people (including some of those that desires enforcement) and we were only hoping that the community mechanisms proposed will reduce the negative impact of membership. If we then have a way to get compliance from board without membership, I expect we would achieved at lot in keeping ICANN board accountable while also ensuring stability of the organisation. I am of the opinion that it will be an act of "irresponsibility (violation of office rules)" for board to refuse to abide by its bylaw, so I think ensuring that their operating manual (bylaw) is community inclusive as much as possible is quite important and I believe the CCWG has done a good job on that. I think the Co-Chair and others have hinted rightly; we should look at the merits in what is suggested and not the person/group. Like I have earlier said, I am as "angry" as anyone who also think board's suggestion is coming late but the fact is that we are still in development phase and some have argued that board intervening early in this process could have been mis-interpreted to mean top down as it's already claimed presently. The interest in ICANN would continue to increase; the board and community are both liable to compromise/capture but I am quite certain that such compromise may be easier to fix for board than at the highly "dynamic" community level. In as much as ensuring multi-stakeholder environment is important, protecting it should also be an important factor. I wish the CCWG all best at their face 2 face meeting in LA, will try to follow through remotely as one of the "unfunded" participant ;-) Regards Sent from my Asus Zenfone2 Kindly excuse brevity and typos. On 13 Sep 2015 05:02, "Bruce Tonkin" <Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au> wrote:
Hello Jordan,
I am not a lawyer – but will provide my understanding at least.
So Bruce - would they have legal standing as individuals? Or as an unincorporated association, that is, collectively?
They would have legal standing as individuals. The individuals would be occupying roles in the bylaws – i.e. chairs of SOs and ACs. They would take action on behalf of the SOs and ACs, and have standing to legally enforce.
In a similar way I have a role on the Board as a voting Board director – but I could enforce actions against the organization as an individual.
Relatedly - has the board analysed whether the model is viable without a membership approach given the obligations directors hold (fiduciary obligations) in a non-membership system?
I don’t understand the question. From my understanding Directors of a board have the same fiduciary obligations regardless of where it is membership or non-membership organization. The arbitration model I think could apply to either type of organization as well.
Regards,
Bruce Tonkin
J
On Sunday, 13 September 2015, Bruce Tonkin < Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au> wrote:
Hello Malcolm,
Binding Enforcement: In California, final decisions may be turned into enforceable court judgments. So an arbitration decision issued following an MEM proceeding can be enforced in a court in California. "
My first question is "By whom?"
As per FAQ question no. 13, the answer is The MEM Issue Group.
This MEM Issue Group could be comprised of the individual people serving as chairs of the participating SOs/ACs. These individuals would have legal standing to initiate arbitration and have legal standing to enforce the outcome of the arbitration in court.
ICANN will indemnify the MEM Issue Group, and will bear the fees and expenses that might be incurred in any lawsuit arising out of the enforcement of a MEM final arbitration decision.
There are other options - but this seems to be the simplest. More elaborate options include forming an unincorporated association for the purpose of initiating the arbitration and then seeking to enforce in court if necessary (which I hope is never necessary - as any Board that I have been on would abide by the arbitration).
I have attached the relevant docs for ease of reference.
Regards, Bruce Tonkin
-- Jordan Carter Chief Executive, InternetNZ
+64-21-442-649 | jordan@internetnz.net.nz
Sent on the run, apologies for brevity
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
participants (11)
-
Bruce Tonkin -
Carlos Raul -
Chris Disspain -
Dr Eberhard W Lisse -
farzaneh badii -
James Gannon -
Jordan Carter -
Malcolm Hutty -
Mathieu Weill -
Paul Rosenzweig -
Seun Ojedeji