Notes from Briefing with Counsel for Plan B Proposal Meeting - Thursday 8 October 2015 @ 21:00 UTC
Dear all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for the Briefing with Counsel for Plan B Proposal Meeting - Thursday 8 October 2015 @ 21:00 UTC will be available here: https://community.icann.org/x/BahYAw A copy of the notes may be found below. AC room recording: https://icann.adobeconnect.com/p46pejy7tf3/ Briefing with Counsel for Plan B Proposal Meeting - Thursday 8 October 2015 @ 21:00 UTC Attendees in AC room: CCWG: Steve DelBianco; Jonathan Zuck; Kavouss Arasteh Counsel: Ingrid Mittermaier; Michael Clark; Rosemary Fei (and Ed McNicholas and Holly Gregory on the phone line only) Notes: Today's discussion revolves around the text here: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/2015-October/00 6125.html Kavouss added an edit (underlined here): 1. Power to block a proposed Operating Plan/Strat Plan/Budget with limitation on rejection/ Veto ( maximum 3 times ) 2. Power to approve changes to Fundamental Bylaws and Articles of Incorporation. 3. Power to block changes to standard Blaws. 4. Power to appoint and remove individual board Directors possibly with the approval of the entire community 5. Power to recall the entire board of Directors 6. Mechanism for binding IRP where a panel decision is enforceable in any court recognizing international arbitration results — even if ICCANNs Board refused to participate in the binding arbitration. (assuming CCWG lawyers verify this works without activating a Membership model) All decision taken on the above would require consensus , without more than two Advice against that ( non-voting of ACs) I think we are close enough to get consensus around the above powers before we leave Dublin. And based on what we’ve heard recently, the board will support the powers described above. Action for Steve/Jonathan: revise chart per call discussions (MEM / Single Designator / Single Member) and send to lawyers before they can proceed with their work. Actions for lawyers: * Assess level of effort to do 2-part project as follows: * Part 1: completing the chart shown in AC. The chart shows the 6 Powers and their enforcement in Board's MEM (within Bylaws), Designator, Sole Member. For first pass, only do each of the 3 as described. (If there is extra time, the lawyers can study options for personhood for SO/ACs in the models). * Part 2: Plan B design and lockdown Lawyers would like for this to be a priority if this needs to be ready by Dublin. The more the documents can look simpler, the better. Minimal change is preferred.
Thanks for circulating this Grace. I would certainly support - _and believe it should be a priority for Dublin_ - having a very clear understanding (in chart form or other) of the enforcement mechanisms for each of the powers under the SMM, Designator and MEM models as noted in the second bullet in the Action for lawyers section below. Hopefully much of this has analysis been done and won't take to much additional work. Thanks. Matthew On 08/10/2015 18:14, Grace Abuhamad wrote:
Dear all,
The notes, recordings and transcripts for the Briefing with Counsel for Plan B Proposal Meeting - Thursday 8 October 2015 @ 21:00 UTC
will be available here: https://community.icann.org/x/BahYAw
A copy of the notes may be found below.
AC room recording: https://icann.adobeconnect.com/p46pejy7tf3/
*Briefing with Counsel for Plan B Proposal Meeting - Thursday 8 October 2015 @ 21:00 UTC*
*Attendees in AC room: *
CCWG: Steve DelBianco; Jonathan Zuck; Kavouss Arasteh
Counsel: Ingrid Mittermaier; Michael Clark; Rosemary Fei (and Ed McNicholas and Holly Gregory on the phone line only)
*Notes:*
Today's discussion revolves around the text here: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/2015-October/00...
Kavouss added an edit (underlined here):
1. Power to block a proposed Operating Plan/Strat Plan/Budget with limitation on rejection/ Veto ( maximum 3 times )
2. Power to approve changes to Fundamental Bylaws and Articles of Incorporation.
3. Power to block changes to standard Blaws.
4. Power to appoint and remove individual board Directors possibly with the approval of the entire community
5. Power to recall the entire board of Directors
6. Mechanism for binding IRP where a panel decision is enforceable in any court recognizing international arbitration results — even if ICCANNs Board refused to participate in the binding arbitration. (assuming CCWG lawyers verify this works without activating a Membership model)
All decision taken on the above would require consensus , without more than two Advice against that ( non-voting of ACs)
I think we are close enough to get consensus around the above powers before we leave Dublin. And based on what we’ve heard recently, the board will support the powers described above.
*Action for Steve/Jonathan: *revise chart per call discussions (MEM / Single Designator / Single Member) and send to lawyers before they can proceed with their work.
*Actions for lawyers*:
* Assess level of effort to do 2-part project as follows: * Part 1: completing the chart shown in AC. The chart shows the 6 Powers and their enforcement in Board's MEM (within Bylaws), Designator, Sole Member. For first pass, only do each of the 3 as described. (If there is extra time, the lawyers can study options for personhood for SO/ACs in the models). * Part 2: Plan B design and lockdown
Lawyers would like for this to be a priority if this needs to be ready by Dublin.
The more the documents can look simpler, the better. Minimal change is preferred.
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
-- Matthew Shears Director - Global Internet Policy and Human Rights Center for Democracy & Technology mshears@cdt.org + 44 771 247 2987 --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
Enforceability was a key theme I heard at the European's Commission's HLIG at the CENTR meeting in Brussels. They also said:
We wish to reiterate our support to the Cross-Community Working Group on the IANA Stewardship Transition (CWG) and to the work of the IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG).
and that
The outcome will only have the necessary legitimacy if the bottom-up, consensus-driven process continues to be fully respected.
http://www.domainpulp.com/icann/centr-and-commission-meet-and-discuss-icann-... On 11/10/15 08:56, Matthew Shears wrote:
Thanks for circulating this Grace.
I would certainly support - _and believe it should be a priority for Dublin_ - having a very clear understanding (in chart form or other) of the enforcement mechanisms for each of the powers under the SMM, Designator and MEM models as noted in the second bullet in the Action for lawyers section below. Hopefully much of this has analysis been done and won't take to much additional work.
Thanks.
Matthew
On 08/10/2015 18:14, Grace Abuhamad wrote:
Dear all,
The notes, recordings and transcripts for the Briefing with Counsel for Plan B Proposal Meeting - Thursday 8 October 2015 @ 21:00 UTC
will be available here: https://community.icann.org/x/BahYAw
A copy of the notes may be found below.
AC room recording: <https://icann.adobeconnect.com/p46pejy7tf3/>https://icann.adobeconnect.com/p46pejy7tf3/
*Briefing with Counsel for Plan B Proposal Meeting - Thursday 8 October 2015 @ 21:00 UTC*
*Attendees in AC room: *
CCWG: Steve DelBianco; Jonathan Zuck; Kavouss Arasteh
Counsel: Ingrid Mittermaier; Michael Clark; Rosemary Fei (and Ed McNicholas and Holly Gregory on the phone line only)
*Notes:*
Today's discussion revolves around the text here: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/2015-October/006125.html>http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/2015-October/006125.html
Kavouss added an edit (underlined here):
1. Power to block a proposed Operating Plan/Strat Plan/Budget with limitation on rejection/ Veto ( maximum 3 times )
2. Power to approve changes to Fundamental Bylaws and Articles of Incorporation.
3. Power to block changes to standard Blaws.
4. Power to appoint and remove individual board Directors possibly with the approval of the entire community
5. Power to recall the entire board of Directors
6. Mechanism for binding IRP where a panel decision is enforceable in any court recognizing international arbitration results — even if ICCANNs Board refused to participate in the binding arbitration. (assuming CCWG lawyers verify this works without activating a Membership model)
All decision taken on the above would require consensus , without more than two Advice against that ( non-voting of ACs)
I think we are close enough to get consensus around the above powers before we leave Dublin. And based on what we’ve heard recently, the board will support the powers described above.
*Action for Steve/Jonathan: *revise chart per call discussions (MEM / Single Designator / Single Member) and send to lawyers before they can proceed with their work.
*Actions for lawyers*:
* Assess level of effort to do 2-part project as follows: * Part 1: completing the chart shown in AC. The chart shows the 6 Powers and their enforcement in Board's MEM (within Bylaws), Designator, Sole Member. For first pass, only do each of the 3 as described. (If there is extra time, the lawyers can study options for personhood for SO/ACs in the models). * Part 2: Plan B design and lockdown
Lawyers would like for this to be a priority if this needs to be ready by Dublin.
The more the documents can look simpler, the better. Minimal change is preferred.
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
--
Matthew Shears Director - Global Internet Policy and Human Rights Center for Democracy & Technology mshears@cdt.org + 44 771 247 2987
------------------------------------------------------------------------ Avast logo <https://www.avast.com/antivirus>
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. www.avast.com <https://www.avast.com/antivirus>
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Nigel Help us who weren't there read between the lines -- is this the HLIG saying that the CCWG-A proposal is more to be respected than the Boards MEM revision. That is how I read it, which would be powerful, but I don't want to overstate it if that is an inaccurate interpretation 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 -----Original Message----- From: Nigel Roberts [mailto:nigel@channelisles.net] Sent: Sunday, October 11, 2015 4:21 AM To: accountability-cross-community@icann.org Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Need for clarity on enforcement mechanisms for Dublin Enforceability was a key theme I heard at the European's Commission's HLIG at the CENTR meeting in Brussels. They also said:
We wish to reiterate our support to the Cross-Community Working Group on the IANA Stewardship Transition (CWG) and to the work of the IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG).
and that
The outcome will only have the necessary legitimacy if the bottom-up, consensus-driven process continues to be fully respected.
http://www.domainpulp.com/icann/centr-and-commission-meet-and-discuss-icann-... On 11/10/15 08:56, Matthew Shears wrote:
Thanks for circulating this Grace.
I would certainly support - _and believe it should be a priority for Dublin_ - having a very clear understanding (in chart form or other) of the enforcement mechanisms for each of the powers under the SMM, Designator and MEM models as noted in the second bullet in the Action for lawyers section below. Hopefully much of this has analysis been done and won't take to much additional work.
Thanks.
Matthew
On 08/10/2015 18:14, Grace Abuhamad wrote:
Dear all,
The notes, recordings and transcripts for the Briefing with Counsel for Plan B Proposal Meeting - Thursday 8 October 2015 @ 21:00 UTC
will be available here: https://community.icann.org/x/BahYAw
A copy of the notes may be found below.
AC room recording: <https://icann.adobeconnect.com/p46pejy7tf3/>https://icann.adobeconne ct.com/p46pejy7tf3/
*Briefing with Counsel for Plan B Proposal Meeting - Thursday 8 October 2015 @ 21:00 UTC*
*Attendees in AC room: *
CCWG: Steve DelBianco; Jonathan Zuck; Kavouss Arasteh
Counsel: Ingrid Mittermaier; Michael Clark; Rosemary Fei (and Ed McNicholas and Holly Gregory on the phone line only)
*Notes:*
Today's discussion revolves around the text here: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/2015-Oc tober/006125.html>http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross- community/2015-October/006125.html
Kavouss added an edit (underlined here):
1. Power to block a proposed Operating Plan/Strat Plan/Budget with limitation on rejection/ Veto ( maximum 3 times )
2. Power to approve changes to Fundamental Bylaws and Articles of Incorporation.
3. Power to block changes to standard Blaws.
4. Power to appoint and remove individual board Directors possibly with the approval of the entire community
5. Power to recall the entire board of Directors
6. Mechanism for binding IRP where a panel decision is enforceable in any court recognizing international arbitration results — even if ICCANNs Board refused to participate in the binding arbitration. (assuming CCWG lawyers verify this works without activating a Membership model)
All decision taken on the above would require consensus , without more than two Advice against that ( non-voting of ACs)
I think we are close enough to get consensus around the above powers before we leave Dublin. And based on what we’ve heard recently, the board will support the powers described above.
*Action for Steve/Jonathan: *revise chart per call discussions (MEM / Single Designator / Single Member) and send to lawyers before they can proceed with their work.
*Actions for lawyers*:
* Assess level of effort to do 2-part project as follows: * Part 1: completing the chart shown in AC. The chart shows the 6 Powers and their enforcement in Board's MEM (within Bylaws), Designator, Sole Member. For first pass, only do each of the 3 as described. (If there is extra time, the lawyers can study options for personhood for SO/ACs in the models). * Part 2: Plan B design and lockdown
Lawyers would like for this to be a priority if this needs to be ready by Dublin.
The more the documents can look simpler, the better. Minimal change is preferred.
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
--
Matthew Shears Director - Global Internet Policy and Human Rights Center for Democracy & Technology mshears@cdt.org + 44 771 247 2987
------------------------------------------------------------------------ Avast logo <https://www.avast.com/antivirus>
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. www.avast.com <https://www.avast.com/antivirus>
_______________________________________________ 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
It's not for me to interpret the Joint Statement as I was no part of its drafting. The statement was prepared jointly by the HLIG and CENTR and it was offered to the joint meeting as a draft. It was then adopted without even minor typographical or stylistic changes. Statements published public authorities, or together involving public authorities are necessarily guarded, in general. So I would hesitate to give you an answer to your question with 100.1% certainty. However, personally speaking, I did indeed find the proposed statement "powerful" (as you put it), and my comments upon seeing it for the first time, expressed in the meeting at the time, were that it needed no changes. I trust this helps? Nigel PS: Personally I am mildly less than enamoured of the CCWG-A proposal myself (the "single member idea"), but I remain terribly disturbed that the Board appears to think -- to paraphrase myself -- that it is entitled to yap subsequent to canine purchase. On 13/10/15 02:18, Paul Rosenzweig wrote:
Nigel
Help us who weren't there read between the lines -- is this the HLIG saying that the CCWG-A proposal is more to be respected than th e Boards MEM revision. That is how I read it, which would be powerful, but I don't want to overstate it if that is an inaccurate interpretation
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
-----Original Message----- From: Nigel Roberts [mailto:nigel@channelisles.net] Sent: Sunday, October 11, 2015 4:21 AM To: accountability-cross-community@icann.org Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Need for clarity on enforcement mechanisms for Dublin
Enforceability was a key theme I heard at the European's Commission's HLIG at the CENTR meeting in Brussels.
They also said:
We wish to reiterate our support to the Cross-Community Working Group on the IANA Stewardship Transition (CWG) and to the work of the IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG).
and that
The outcome will only have the necessary legitimacy if the bottom-up, consensus-driven process continues to be fully respected.
http://www.domainpulp.com/icann/centr-and-commission-meet-and-discuss-icann-...
On 11/10/15 08:56, Matthew Shears wrote:
Thanks for circulating this Grace.
I would certainly support - _and believe it should be a priority for Dublin_ - having a very clear understanding (in chart form or other) of the enforcement mechanisms for each of the powers under the SMM, Designator and MEM models as noted in the second bullet in the Action for lawyers section below. Hopefully much of this has analysis been done and won't take to much additional work.
Thanks.
Matthew
On 08/10/2015 18:14, Grace Abuhamad wrote:
Dear all,
The notes, recordings and transcripts for the Briefing with Counsel for Plan B Proposal Meeting - Thursday 8 October 2015 @ 21:00 UTC
will be available here: https://community.icann.org/x/BahYAw
A copy of the notes may be found below.
AC room recording: <https://icann.adobeconnect.com/p46pejy7tf3/>https://icann.adobeconne ct.com/p46pejy7tf3/
*Briefing with Counsel for Plan B Proposal Meeting - Thursday 8 October 2015 @ 21:00 UTC*
*Attendees in AC room: *
CCWG: Steve DelBianco; Jonathan Zuck; Kavouss Arasteh
Counsel: Ingrid Mittermaier; Michael Clark; Rosemary Fei (and Ed McNicholas and Holly Gregory on the phone line only)
*Notes:*
Today's discussion revolves around the text here: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/2015-Oc tober/006125.html>http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross- community/2015-October/006125.html
Kavouss added an edit (underlined here):
1. Power to block a proposed Operating Plan/Strat Plan/Budget with limitation on rejection/ Veto ( maximum 3 times )
2. Power to approve changes to Fundamental Bylaws and Articles of Incorporation.
3. Power to block changes to standard Blaws.
4. Power to appoint and remove individual board Directors possibly with the approval of the entire community
5. Power to recall the entire board of Directors
6. Mechanism for binding IRP where a panel decision is enforceable in any court recognizing international arbitration results — even if ICCANNs Board refused to participate in the binding arbitration. (assuming CCWG lawyers verify this works without activating a Membership model)
All decision taken on the above would require consensus , without more than two Advice against that ( non-voting of ACs)
I think we are close enough to get consensus around the above powers before we leave Dublin. And based on what we’ve heard recently, the board will support the powers described above.
*Action for Steve/Jonathan: *revise chart per call discussions (MEM / Single Designator / Single Member) and send to lawyers before they can proceed with their work.
*Actions for lawyers*:
* Assess level of effort to do 2-part project as follows: * Part 1: completing the chart shown in AC. The chart shows the 6 Powers and their enforcement in Board's MEM (within Bylaws), Designator, Sole Member. For first pass, only do each of the 3 as described. (If there is extra time, the lawyers can study options for personhood for SO/ACs in the models). * Part 2: Plan B design and lockdown
Lawyers would like for this to be a priority if this needs to be ready by Dublin.
The more the documents can look simpler, the better. Minimal change is preferred.
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
--
Matthew Shears Director - Global Internet Policy and Human Rights Center for Democracy & Technology mshears@cdt.org + 44 771 247 2987
------------------------------------------------------------------------ Avast logo <https://www.avast.com/antivirus>
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. www.avast.com <https://www.avast.com/antivirus>
_______________________________________________ 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
This is a general question to the group, in your view, what percentage of responses to this email list contain new ideas for real progress and what percentage of responses are clarifications and confusion on what ICANN's situation currently is? Is it that we are so far along in the process that the only thing to do is wait on the ideas already proposed? I expected people on the list to be saying, "lets try it this way" or "what about this idea", I haven't seen that said once. Ron
When you join a process 10 months into it, you should not expect people to react well to your request that they revisit issues settled some time ago. 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: Ron Baione [mailto:ron.baione@yahoo.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 13, 2015 12:26 PM To: Nigel Roberts <nigel@channelisles.net>; paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com; accountability-cross-community@icann.org Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Need for clarity on enforcement mechanisms for Dublin This is a general question to the group, in your view, what percentage of responses to this email list contain new ideas for real progress and what percentage of responses are clarifications and confusion on what ICANN's situation currently is? Is it that we are so far along in the process that the only thing to do is wait on the ideas already proposed? I expected people on the list to be saying, "lets try it this way" or "what about this idea", I haven't seen that said once. Ron _____ From: Nigel Roberts <nigel@channelisles.net <mailto:nigel@channelisles.net> >; To: Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com <mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> >; <accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> >; Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Need for clarity on enforcement mechanisms for Dublin Sent: Tue, Oct 13, 2015 7:32:05 AM It's not for me to interpret the Joint Statement as I was no part of its drafting. The statement was prepared jointly by the HLIG and CENTR and it was offered to the joint meeting as a draft. It was then adopted without even minor typographical or stylistic changes. Statements published public authorities, or together involving public authorities are necessarily guarded, in general. So I would hesitate to give you an answer to your question with 100.1% certainty. However, personally speaking, I did indeed find the proposed statement "powerful" (as you put it), and my comments upon seeing it for the first time, expressed in the meeting at the time, were that it needed no changes. I trust this helps? Nigel PS: Personally I am mildly less than enamoured of the CCWG-A proposal myself (the "single member idea"), but I remain terribly disturbed that the Board appears to think -- to paraphrase myself -- that it is entitled to yap subsequent to canine purchase. On 13/10/15 02:18, Paul Rosenzweig wrote:
Nigel
Help us who weren't there read between the lines -- is this the HLIG saying that the CCWG-A proposal is more to be respected than th e Boards MEM revision. That is how I read it, which would be powerful, but I don't want to overstate it if that is an inaccurate interpretation
Paul
Paul Rosenzweig paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com <javascript:return> O: +1 (202) 547-0660 M: +1 (202) 329-9650 VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066 Link to my PGP Key
-----Original Message----- From: Nigel Roberts [mailto:nigel@channelisles.net <javascript:return> ] Sent: Sunday, October 11, 2015 4:21 AM To: accountability-cross-community@icann.org <javascript:return> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Need for clarity on enforcement mechanisms for Dublin
Enforceability was a key theme I heard at the European's Commission's HLIG at the CENTR meeting in Brussels.
They also said:
We wish to reiterate our support to the Cross-Community Working Group on the IANA Stewardship Transition (CWG) and to the work of the IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG).
and that
The outcome will only have the necessary legitimacy if the bottom-up, consensus-driven process continues to be fully respected.
http://www.domainpulp.com/icann/centr-and-commission-meet-and-discuss-icann-...
On 11/10/15 08:56, Matthew Shears wrote:
Thanks for circulating this Grace.
I would certainly support - _and believe it should be a priority for Dublin_ - having a very clear understanding (in chart form or other) of the enforcement mechanisms for each of the powers under the SMM, Designator and MEM models as noted in the second bullet in the Action for lawyers section below. Hopefully much of this has analysis been done and won't take to much additional work.
Thanks.
Matthew
On 08/10/2015 18:14, Grace Abuhamad wrote:
Dear all,
The notes, recordings and transcripts for the Briefing with Counsel for Plan B Proposal Meeting - Thursday 8 October 2015 @ 21:00 UTC
will be available here: https://community.icann.org/x/BahYAw
A copy of the notes may be found below.
AC room recording: <https://icann.adobeconnect.com/p46pejy7tf3/>https://icann.adobeconne ct.com/p46pejy7tf3/
*Briefing with Counsel for Plan B Proposal Meeting - Thursday 8 October 2015 @ 21:00 UTC*
*Attendees in AC room: *
CCWG: Steve DelBianco; Jonathan Zuck; Kavouss Arasteh
Counsel: Ingrid Mittermaier; Michael Clark; Rosemary Fei (and Ed McNicholas and Holly Gregory on the phone line only)
*Notes:*
Today's discussion revolves around the text here: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/2015-Oc tober/006125.html>http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross- community/2015-October/006125.html
Kavouss added an edit (underlined here):
1. Power to block a proposed Operating Plan/Strat Plan/Budget with limitation on rejection/ Veto ( maximum 3 times )
2. Power to approve changes to Fundamental Bylaws and Articles of Incorporation.
3. Power to block changes to standard Blaws.
4. Power to appoint and remove individual board Directors possibly with the approval of the entire community
5. Power to recall the entire board of Directors
6. Mechanism for binding IRP where a panel decision is enforceable in any court recognizing international arbitration results — even if ICCANNs Board refused to participate in the binding arbitration. (assuming CCWG lawyers verify this works without activating a Membership model)
All decision taken on the above would require consensus , without more than two Advice against that ( non-voting of ACs)
I think we are close enough to get consensus around the above powers before we leave Dublin. And based on what we’ve heard recently, the board will support the powers described above.
*Action for Steve/Jonathan: *revise chart per call discussions (MEM / Single Designator / Single Member) and send to lawyers before they can proceed with their work.
*Actions for lawyers*:
* Assess level of effort to do 2-part project as follows: * Part 1: completing the chart shown in AC. The chart shows the 6 Powers and their enforcement in Board's MEM (within Bylaws), Designator, Sole Member. For first pass, only do each of the 3 as described. (If there is extra time, the lawyers can study options for personhood for SO/ACs in the models). * Part 2: Plan B design and lockdown
Lawyers would like for this to be a priority if this needs to be ready by Dublin.
The more the documents can look simpler, the better. Minimal change is preferred.
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <javascript:return> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
--
Matthew Shears Director - Global Internet Policy and Human Rights Center for Democracy & Technology mshears@cdt.org <javascript:return> + 44 771 247 2987
------------------------------------------------------------------------ Avast logo <https://www.avast.com/antivirus>
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. www.avast.com <http://www.avast.com> <https://www.avast.com/antivirus>
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <javascript:return> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <javascript:return> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <javascript:return> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
I'm not talking about how people react, i'm asking if the new idea phase is over already. By "working group" I thought people would be actively working out the details, proposing ideas, not just me, and not endlessly reclarifying "what the board thinks, said, knows, wonders, will do", all speculation, so far the only thing i've seen major consenseus on is the chronolgy calendar blog post. The timeline of events has been agreed upon in weeks of emails. Ron
Ron, I personally think there is still a great deal of confusion about how some of the competing proposals for structure would operate in practice. I think that Steve’s idea about comparison of the enforceability aspect of the proposals for each model is a great idea whether or not we follow “Plan B”. I also think we need a visual representation of the timelines associated with each of the three enforcement mechanisms, as stated on the call. For example, it is very unclear to me how the Community exercises budget authority as required by the CWG-Stewardship in the context of binding arbitration. Here is why: 1. Alan brought up the MEM does not specify a level of consensus. I read the proposal from the Board as requiring full consensus of all SOs and ACs. I brought this up as a question – that is, what is the Board’s definition of consensus in the MEM proposal from the very beginning. Of course as Alan points out, we have the same question as to defining consensus depending on how many SOs and ACs participate – in the CMSM proposal. 2. Assuming for the moment that consensus is reached on a budget rejection by the Community, it is not at all clear to me how that process evolves in the context of binding arbitration. Under the MEM, are we saying the Community sends the question of whether it is entitled to reject a budget to a panel of arbitrators to determine? Are we saying that under the CMSM, the budget is at that point rejected by the Community on notice to the Board and the Board has to go “back to the drawing Board” to submit another budget. What budget applies during the long process of binding arbitration? This all points out that there are numerous questions raised by the Board’s proposal that we will have to take the time to carefully sort out – but it certainly would be appropriate to identify various timelines associated with the three models shown in Steve DelBianco’s chart and to create a visual representation of those timelines in relation to the questions Steve has asked for the six points. This is partly a legal question regarding how soon enforcement action takes effect. It is also a Community question regarding the commencement of deliberations on whether or not to take action, convening Community Forum, convening designators, etc. Sidley memo says we already have a designator model, although not a sole designator model. WE DO NEED THEIR ANALYSIS, HOWEVER, OF THE TIMING TO IMPLEMENT AN ENFORCEMENT ACTION ONCE THE COMMUNITY HAS DETERMINED VIA CONSENSUS (HOWEVER THAT IS ULTIMATELY DEFINED) THAT IT WILL INDEED TAKE ACTION TO ENFORCE THE POWER. It is tough to have new ideas when you are not even able to correctly evaluate those that have already been proposed. I volunteer to help work on timelines if others think this is appropriate. Anne [cid:image001.gif@01D1059E.E5F81EF0] Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 (T) 520.629.4428 | (F) 520.879.4725 AAikman@lrrlaw.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrlaw.com> | www.LRRLaw.com<http://www.lrrlaw.com/> From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Ron Baione Sent: Tuesday, October 13, 2015 9:26 AM To: Nigel Roberts; paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com; accountability-cross-community@icann.org Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Need for clarity on enforcement mechanisms for Dublin This is a general question to the group, in your view, what percentage of responses to this email list contain new ideas for real progress and what percentage of responses are clarifications and confusion on what ICANN's situation currently is? Is it that we are so far along in the process that the only thing to do is wait on the ideas already proposed? I expected people on the list to be saying, "lets try it this way" or "what about this idea", I haven't seen that said once. Ron ________________________________ From: Nigel Roberts <nigel@channelisles.net<mailto:nigel@channelisles.net>>; To: Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com<mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com>>; <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>>; Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Need for clarity on enforcement mechanisms for Dublin Sent: Tue, Oct 13, 2015 7:32:05 AM It's not for me to interpret the Joint Statement as I was no part of its drafting. The statement was prepared jointly by the HLIG and CENTR and it was offered to the joint meeting as a draft. It was then adopted without even minor typographical or stylistic changes. Statements published public authorities, or together involving public authorities are necessarily guarded, in general. So I would hesitate to give you an answer to your question with 100.1% certainty. However, personally speaking, I did indeed find the proposed statement "powerful" (as you put it), and my comments upon seeing it for the first time, expressed in the meeting at the time, were that it needed no changes. I trust this helps? Nigel PS: Personally I am mildly less than enamoured of the CCWG-A proposal myself (the "single member idea"), but I remain terribly disturbed that the Board appears to think -- to paraphrase myself -- that it is entitled to yap subsequent to canine purchase. On 13/10/15 02:18, Paul Rosenzweig wrote:
Nigel
Help us who weren't there read between the lines -- is this the HLIG saying that the CCWG-A proposal is more to be respected than th e Boards MEM revision. That is how I read it, which would be powerful, but I don't want to overstate it if that is an inaccurate interpretation
Paul
Paul Rosenzweig paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com<javascript:return> O: +1 (202) 547-0660 M: +1 (202) 329-9650 VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066 Link to my PGP Key
-----Original Message----- From: Nigel Roberts [mailto:nigel@channelisles.net<javascript:return>] Sent: Sunday, October 11, 2015 4:21 AM To: accountability-cross-community@icann.org<javascript:return> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Need for clarity on enforcement mechanisms for Dublin
Enforceability was a key theme I heard at the European's Commission's HLIG at the CENTR meeting in Brussels.
They also said:
We wish to reiterate our support to the Cross-Community Working Group on the IANA Stewardship Transition (CWG) and to the work of the IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG).
and that
The outcome will only have the necessary legitimacy if the bottom-up, consensus-driven process continues to be fully respected.
http://www.domainpulp.com/icann/centr-and-commission-meet-and-discuss-icann-...
On 11/10/15 08:56, Matthew Shears wrote:
Thanks for circulating this Grace.
I would certainly support - _and believe it should be a priority for Dublin_ - having a very clear understanding (in chart form or other) of the enforcement mechanisms for each of the powers under the SMM, Designator and MEM models as noted in the second bullet in the Action for lawyers section below. Hopefully much of this has analysis been done and won't take to much additional work.
Thanks.
Matthew
On 08/10/2015 18:14, Grace Abuhamad wrote:
Dear all,
The notes, recordings and transcripts for the Briefing with Counsel for Plan B Proposal Meeting - Thursday 8 October 2015 @ 21:00 UTC
will be available here: https://community.icann.org/x/BahYAw
A copy of the notes may be found below.
AC room recording: <https://icann.adobeconnect.com/p46pejy7tf3/>https://icann.adobeconne ct.com/p46pejy7tf3/
*Briefing with Counsel for Plan B Proposal Meeting - Thursday 8 October 2015 @ 21:00 UTC*
*Attendees in AC room: *
CCWG: Steve DelBianco; Jonathan Zuck; Kavouss Arasteh
Counsel: Ingrid Mittermaier; Michael Clark; Rosemary Fei (and Ed McNicholas and Holly Gregory on the phone line only)
*Notes:*
Today's discussion revolves around the text here: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/2015-Oc tober/006125.html>http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross- community/2015-October/006125.html
Kavouss added an edit (underlined here):
1. Power to block a proposed Operating Plan/Strat Plan/Budget with limitation on rejection/ Veto ( maximum 3 times )
2. Power to approve changes to Fundamental Bylaws and Articles of Incorporation.
3. Power to block changes to standard Blaws.
4. Power to appoint and remove individual board Directors possibly with the approval of the entire community
5. Power to recall the entire board of Directors
6. Mechanism for binding IRP where a panel decision is enforceable in any court recognizing international arbitration results — even if ICCANNs Board refused to participate in the binding arbitration. (assuming CCWG lawyers verify this works without activating a Membership model)
All decision taken on the above would require consensus , without more than two Advice against that ( non-voting of ACs)
I think we are close enough to get consensus around the above powers before we leave Dublin. And based on what we’ve heard recently, the board will support the powers described above.
*Action for Steve/Jonathan: *revise chart per call discussions (MEM / Single Designator / Single Member) and send to lawyers before they can proceed with their work.
*Actions for lawyers*:
* Assess level of effort to do 2-part project as follows: * Part 1: completing the chart shown in AC. The chart shows the 6 Powers and their enforcement in Board's MEM (within Bylaws), Designator, Sole Member. For first pass, only do each of the 3 as described. (If there is extra time, the lawyers can study options for personhood for SO/ACs in the models). * Part 2: Plan B design and lockdown
Lawyers would like for this to be a priority if this needs to be ready by Dublin.
The more the documents can look simpler, the better. Minimal change is preferred.
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<javascript:return> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
--
Matthew Shears Director - Global Internet Policy and Human Rights Center for Democracy & Technology mshears@cdt.org<javascript:return> + 44 771 247 2987
------------------------------------------------------------------------ Avast logo <https://www.avast.com/antivirus>
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. www.avast.com<http://www.avast.com> <https://www.avast.com/antivirus>
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<javascript:return> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<javascript:return> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<javascript:return> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community ________________________________ This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521.
Sorry I previously replied to the wrong chain with this comment so am reposting: Regarding the question below about delegating a Community rejection of a budget to binding arbitration, I also note an excerpt from one of the recent Sidley memos which opines that in the absence of a statutory right (e.g. that conferred by a CA membership corporation which relieves the directors of fiduciary duties with respect to powers reserved to the members), DIRECTORS MAY NOT DELEGATE DECISIONS REQUIRING EXERCISE OF THEIR CORE FIDUCIARY DUTIES TO AN ARBITRATION PANEL. HERE IS THE EXCERPT FROM THE LEGAL MEMO MATHIEU DISTRIBUTED EARLIER TODAY AND IS ATTACHED AGAIN – see page A-2 A board may not submit exercise of “core” fiduciary duties to arbitration. As noted above, California law requires “[e]ach corporation [to] have a board of directors” that exercises the powers of the corporation and each director acts as a fiduciary of the corporation. Cal. Corp. Code § 5210. “The board may delegate the management of the activities of the corporation to any person or persons, management company, or committee however composed, provided that the activities and affairs of the corporation shall be managed and all corporate powers shall be exercised under the ultimate direction of the board.” Id. (emphasis added). The California courts have not determined the precise limits of the italicized text, but with respect to for-profit corporations, the California Supreme Court has held in Wells Fargo Bank v. Superior Court, 811 P.2d 1025, 1033 (Cal. 1991) (en banc), that “a board of directors has no power to delegate the performance of its basic powers and functions, particularly its statutory prerogatives, in the absence of express statutory authority.” So it would be good to know if Jones Days believes the Board can submit authority over the budget and authority over the strategic and operating plans (as required by the CWG-Stewardship) to binding arbitration as is suggested by the MEM proposal and by Fadi’s chart. PLEASE NOTE I PERSONALLY BELIEVE IT IS HIGHLY UNLIKELY THAT AN ARBITRATION ORDER FOUNDED ON A PROCESS THAT VIOLATES STATUTORY LAW PROHIBITING DELEGATION OF FIDUCIARY DUTY WOULD BE ENFORCEABLE IN COURT. (This is not a legal opinion.) Anne [cid:image001.gif@01D105A8.AD599970] Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 (T) 520.629.4428 | (F) 520.879.4725 AAikman@lrrlaw.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrlaw.com> | www.LRRLaw.com<http://www.lrrlaw.com/> From: Aikman-Scalese, Anne Sent: Tuesday, October 13, 2015 10:07 AM To: 'Ron Baione'; Nigel Roberts; paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com; accountability-cross-community@icann.org Subject: RE: [CCWG-ACCT] Need for clarity on enforcement mechanisms for Dublin Ron, I personally think there is still a great deal of confusion about how some of the competing proposals for structure would operate in practice. I think that Steve’s idea about comparison of the enforceability aspect of the proposals for each model is a great idea whether or not we follow “Plan B”. I also think we need a visual representation of the timelines associated with each of the three enforcement mechanisms, as stated on the call. For example, it is very unclear to me how the Community exercises budget authority as required by the CWG-Stewardship in the context of binding arbitration. Here is why: 1. Alan brought up the MEM does not specify a level of consensus. I read the proposal from the Board as requiring full consensus of all SOs and ACs. I brought this up as a question – that is, what is the Board’s definition of consensus in the MEM proposal from the very beginning. Of course as Alan points out, we have the same question as to defining consensus depending on how many SOs and ACs participate – in the CMSM proposal. 2. Assuming for the moment that consensus is reached on a budget rejection by the Community, it is not at all clear to me how that process evolves in the context of binding arbitration. Under the MEM, are we saying the Community sends the question of whether it is entitled to reject a budget to a panel of arbitrators to determine? Are we saying that under the CMSM, the budget is at that point rejected by the Community on notice to the Board and the Board has to go “back to the drawing Board” to submit another budget. What budget applies during the long process of binding arbitration? This all points out that there are numerous questions raised by the Board’s proposal that we will have to take the time to carefully sort out – but it certainly would be appropriate to identify various timelines associated with the three models shown in Steve DelBianco’s chart and to create a visual representation of those timelines in relation to the questions Steve has asked for the six points. This is partly a legal question regarding how soon enforcement action takes effect. It is also a Community question regarding the commencement of deliberations on whether or not to take action, convening Community Forum, convening designators, etc. Sidley memo says we already have a designator model, although not a sole designator model. WE DO NEED THEIR ANALYSIS, HOWEVER, OF THE TIMING TO IMPLEMENT AN ENFORCEMENT ACTION ONCE THE COMMUNITY HAS DETERMINED VIA CONSENSUS (HOWEVER THAT IS ULTIMATELY DEFINED) THAT IT WILL INDEED TAKE ACTION TO ENFORCE THE POWER. It is tough to have new ideas when you are not even able to correctly evaluate those that have already been proposed. I volunteer to help work on timelines if others think this is appropriate. Anne [cid:image001.gif@01D105A8.AD599970] Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 (T) 520.629.4428 | (F) 520.879.4725 AAikman@lrrlaw.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrlaw.com> | www.LRRLaw.com<http://www.lrrlaw.com/> From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Ron Baione Sent: Tuesday, October 13, 2015 9:26 AM To: Nigel Roberts; paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com<mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com>; accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Need for clarity on enforcement mechanisms for Dublin This is a general question to the group, in your view, what percentage of responses to this email list contain new ideas for real progress and what percentage of responses are clarifications and confusion on what ICANN's situation currently is? Is it that we are so far along in the process that the only thing to do is wait on the ideas already proposed? I expected people on the list to be saying, "lets try it this way" or "what about this idea", I haven't seen that said once. Ron ________________________________ From: Nigel Roberts <nigel@channelisles.net<mailto:nigel@channelisles.net>>; To: Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com<mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com>>; <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>>; Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Need for clarity on enforcement mechanisms for Dublin Sent: Tue, Oct 13, 2015 7:32:05 AM It's not for me to interpret the Joint Statement as I was no part of its drafting. The statement was prepared jointly by the HLIG and CENTR and it was offered to the joint meeting as a draft. It was then adopted without even minor typographical or stylistic changes. Statements published public authorities, or together involving public authorities are necessarily guarded, in general. So I would hesitate to give you an answer to your question with 100.1% certainty. However, personally speaking, I did indeed find the proposed statement "powerful" (as you put it), and my comments upon seeing it for the first time, expressed in the meeting at the time, were that it needed no changes. I trust this helps? Nigel PS: Personally I am mildly less than enamoured of the CCWG-A proposal myself (the "single member idea"), but I remain terribly disturbed that the Board appears to think -- to paraphrase myself -- that it is entitled to yap subsequent to canine purchase. On 13/10/15 02:18, Paul Rosenzweig wrote:
Nigel
Help us who weren't there read between the lines -- is this the HLIG saying that the CCWG-A proposal is more to be respected than th e Boards MEM revision. That is how I read it, which would be powerful, but I don't want to overstate it if that is an inaccurate interpretation
Paul
Paul Rosenzweig paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com<javascript:return> O: +1 (202) 547-0660 M: +1 (202) 329-9650 VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066 Link to my PGP Key
-----Original Message----- From: Nigel Roberts [mailto:nigel@channelisles.net<javascript:return>] Sent: Sunday, October 11, 2015 4:21 AM To: accountability-cross-community@icann.org<javascript:return> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Need for clarity on enforcement mechanisms for Dublin
Enforceability was a key theme I heard at the European's Commission's HLIG at the CENTR meeting in Brussels.
They also said:
We wish to reiterate our support to the Cross-Community Working Group on the IANA Stewardship Transition (CWG) and to the work of the IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG).
and that
The outcome will only have the necessary legitimacy if the bottom-up, consensus-driven process continues to be fully respected.
http://www.domainpulp.com/icann/centr-and-commission-meet-and-discuss-icann-...
On 11/10/15 08:56, Matthew Shears wrote:
Thanks for circulating this Grace.
I would certainly support - _and believe it should be a priority for Dublin_ - having a very clear understanding (in chart form or other) of the enforcement mechanisms for each of the powers under the SMM, Designator and MEM models as noted in the second bullet in the Action for lawyers section below. Hopefully much of this has analysis been done and won't take to much additional work.
Thanks.
Matthew
On 08/10/2015 18:14, Grace Abuhamad wrote:
Dear all,
The notes, recordings and transcripts for the Briefing with Counsel for Plan B Proposal Meeting - Thursday 8 October 2015 @ 21:00 UTC
will be available here: https://community.icann.org/x/BahYAw
A copy of the notes may be found below.
AC room recording: <https://icann.adobeconnect.com/p46pejy7tf3/>https://icann.adobeconne ct.com/p46pejy7tf3/
*Briefing with Counsel for Plan B Proposal Meeting - Thursday 8 October 2015 @ 21:00 UTC*
*Attendees in AC room: *
CCWG: Steve DelBianco; Jonathan Zuck; Kavouss Arasteh
Counsel: Ingrid Mittermaier; Michael Clark; Rosemary Fei (and Ed McNicholas and Holly Gregory on the phone line only)
*Notes:*
Today's discussion revolves around the text here: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/2015-Oc tober/006125.html>http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross- community/2015-October/006125.html
Kavouss added an edit (underlined here):
1. Power to block a proposed Operating Plan/Strat Plan/Budget with limitation on rejection/ Veto ( maximum 3 times )
2. Power to approve changes to Fundamental Bylaws and Articles of Incorporation.
3. Power to block changes to standard Blaws.
4. Power to appoint and remove individual board Directors possibly with the approval of the entire community
5. Power to recall the entire board of Directors
6. Mechanism for binding IRP where a panel decision is enforceable in any court recognizing international arbitration results — even if ICCANNs Board refused to participate in the binding arbitration. (assuming CCWG lawyers verify this works without activating a Membership model)
All decision taken on the above would require consensus , without more than two Advice against that ( non-voting of ACs)
I think we are close enough to get consensus around the above powers before we leave Dublin. And based on what we’ve heard recently, the board will support the powers described above.
*Action for Steve/Jonathan: *revise chart per call discussions (MEM / Single Designator / Single Member) and send to lawyers before they can proceed with their work.
*Actions for lawyers*:
* Assess level of effort to do 2-part project as follows: * Part 1: completing the chart shown in AC. The chart shows the 6 Powers and their enforcement in Board's MEM (within Bylaws), Designator, Sole Member. For first pass, only do each of the 3 as described. (If there is extra time, the lawyers can study options for personhood for SO/ACs in the models). * Part 2: Plan B design and lockdown
Lawyers would like for this to be a priority if this needs to be ready by Dublin.
The more the documents can look simpler, the better. Minimal change is preferred.
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<javascript:return> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
--
Matthew Shears Director - Global Internet Policy and Human Rights Center for Democracy & Technology mshears@cdt.org<javascript:return> + 44 771 247 2987
------------------------------------------------------------------------ Avast logo <https://www.avast.com/antivirus>
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. www.avast.com<http://www.avast.com> <https://www.avast.com/antivirus>
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<javascript:return> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<javascript:return> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<javascript:return> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community ________________________________ This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521.
Everybody has questions, but no one is directly answering any of the questions, every "answer" is coupled with varying degrees of speculation, or more questions... round and round in a circle, where is the exit ramp from the merry go round of zero progress here, propose something to the board and get an answer from them. Refining things is not progress when it becomes repetitious. Ron
The matter has been certified and we are working on and you are correct that it builds upon earlier work including the attached.. HOLLY GREGORY Partner Sidley Austin LLP +1 212 839 5853 holly.gregory@sidley.com<mailto:holly.gregory@sidley.com> From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Matthew Shears Sent: Sunday, October 11, 2015 3:57 AM To: Accountability Cross Community Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] Need for clarity on enforcement mechanisms for Dublin Thanks for circulating this Grace. I would certainly support - and believe it should be a priority for Dublin - having a very clear understanding (in chart form or other) of the enforcement mechanisms for each of the powers under the SMM, Designator and MEM models as noted in the second bullet in the Action for lawyers section below. Hopefully much of this has analysis been done and won't take to much additional work. Thanks. Matthew On 08/10/2015 18:14, Grace Abuhamad wrote: Dear all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for the Briefing with Counsel for Plan B Proposal Meeting - Thursday 8 October 2015 @ 21:00 UTC will be available here: https://community.icann.org/x/BahYAw<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_BahYAw&d=CwMD-g&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=1-1w8mU_eFprE2Nn9QnYf01XIV88MOwkXwHYEbF2Y_8&m=_S-oe8PY86oispxO1HJCZzZDhQo427n46kuO7tJoCMU&s=J9_pAOvFAoChCNdcPdY1iBbFXwl1N0bwKHTfD45_bZU&e=> A copy of the notes may be found below. AC room recording: https://icann.adobeconnect.com/p46pejy7tf3/<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__icann.adobeconnect.com_p46pejy7tf3_&d=CwMD-g&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=1-1w8mU_eFprE2Nn9QnYf01XIV88MOwkXwHYEbF2Y_8&m=_S-oe8PY86oispxO1HJCZzZDhQo427n46kuO7tJoCMU&s=jOP67KbNuFVMlIRbLxaVAr3P8E1pkNmh1gphGzWRh-I&e=> Briefing with Counsel for Plan B Proposal Meeting - Thursday 8 October 2015 @ 21:00 UTC Attendees in AC room: CCWG: Steve DelBianco; Jonathan Zuck; Kavouss Arasteh Counsel: Ingrid Mittermaier; Michael Clark; Rosemary Fei (and Ed McNicholas and Holly Gregory on the phone line only) Notes: Today's discussion revolves around the text here: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/2015-October/006125.html<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__mm.icann.org_pipermail_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity_2015-2DOctober_006125.html&d=CwMD-g&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=1-1w8mU_eFprE2Nn9QnYf01XIV88MOwkXwHYEbF2Y_8&m=_S-oe8PY86oispxO1HJCZzZDhQo427n46kuO7tJoCMU&s=XLT7lJlb4CUKJ8Hrpm1f7ig33Uju5FaUqk9V-yDwJaM&e=> Kavouss added an edit (underlined here): 1. Power to block a proposed Operating Plan/Strat Plan/Budget with limitation on rejection/ Veto ( maximum 3 times ) 2. Power to approve changes to Fundamental Bylaws and Articles of Incorporation. 3. Power to block changes to standard Blaws. 4. Power to appoint and remove individual board Directors possibly with the approval of the entire community 5. Power to recall the entire board of Directors 6. Mechanism for binding IRP where a panel decision is enforceable in any court recognizing international arbitration results — even if ICCANNs Board refused to participate in the binding arbitration. (assuming CCWG lawyers verify this works without activating a Membership model) All decision taken on the above would require consensus , without more than two Advice against that ( non-voting of ACs) I think we are close enough to get consensus around the above powers before we leave Dublin. And based on what we’ve heard recently, the board will support the powers described above. Action for Steve/Jonathan: revise chart per call discussions (MEM / Single Designator / Single Member) and send to lawyers before they can proceed with their work. Actions for lawyers: · Assess level of effort to do 2-part project as follows: · Part 1: completing the chart shown in AC. The chart shows the 6 Powers and their enforcement in Board's MEM (within Bylaws), Designator, Sole Member. For first pass, only do each of the 3 as described. (If there is extra time, the lawyers can study options for personhood for SO/ACs in the models). · Part 2: Plan B design and lockdown Lawyers would like for this to be a priority if this needs to be ready by Dublin. The more the documents can look simpler, the better. Minimal change is preferred. _______________________________________________ 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://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwMD-g&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=1-1w8mU_eFprE2Nn9QnYf01XIV88MOwkXwHYEbF2Y_8&m=_S-oe8PY86oispxO1HJCZzZDhQo427n46kuO7tJoCMU&s=ClBxEeEuHfRd3FY4wbTQhzOTTKLxCfL7I4yBbZYwJgI&e=> -- Matthew Shears Director - Global Internet Policy and Human Rights Center for Democracy & Technology mshears@cdt.org<mailto:mshears@cdt.org> + 44 771 247 2987 ________________________________ [Avast logo]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.avast.com_antivirus...> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. www.avast.com<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.avast.com_antivirus...> **************************************************************************************************** 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. ****************************************************************************************************
participants (8)
-
Aikman-Scalese, Anne -
Grace Abuhamad -
Gregory, Holly -
Mailing List for the ICANN Accountability & Governance Cross Community Group -
Matthew Shears -
Nigel Roberts -
Paul Rosenzweig -
Ron Baione