Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Lawyers' Meeting on Friday
While I wish Bruce wisdom in answering your question. I don't understand how you conclude that it's erroneous. From my "very" little understanding of law, there are more than one way to achieve a goal and none of them lacks consequences (disadvantage). We have requested CCWG legal to provide their view about board proposal, I don't know what is more useful than that document produced(unless we don't trust CCWG legal as well). I mean, how differently would we have responded by seeing the notes other than the way we have to board's proposal That said, this does not mean I am discouraging transparency but just to indicate that our answer/solution to settle the current disagreement is most likely not in those notes. Regards Sent from my Asus Zenfone2 Kindly excuse brevity and typos. On 1 Oct 2015 10:24, "Jordan Carter" <jordan@internetnz.net.nz> wrote: Hi Bruce What advice has Jones Day or ICANN's in house legal team given to the Board - either directly or through management - or directly to management - that has led to erroneous conclusions regarding whether or not the decisions to exercise powers on the part of a member can be constrained or not? Such erroneous conclusions were evident from the comments of some board members in Los Angeles. Can that advise or a summary of it be shared with the CCWG? Thanks Jordan On Thursday, 1 October 2015, Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au> wrote:
Hello Farzaneh,
I understand that the Board has made the Jones Day impact assessment available. But in a note it states that it has had discussions with advisors and staff. I would also like to request for any document that the Board has received in its discussion with the advisors and staff and notes of the deliberation of their meetings.
Yes our intent is to make all documents available. So far the only one that I am aware of is the Jones Day analysis that was published.
We received verbal briefings form the Advisors to the CCWG ( https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/Advisors) , and I understand these advisors also gave verbal briefings to the CCWG, as well as any written comments they have posted to the public comments forum.
Regards, Bruce Tonkin
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
-- 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
Seun, Yes, probably premature for “erroneous”, however the first challenge to a “new structure” on Fadi’s foil was: “New structure with legal authority to change any and all bylaws” The Community did not ask for this, and opinion from Sidley was: “Sole Member would have statutory right under California law to initiate or adopt bylaws amendments on its own, but the exercise of this right could be practically curtailed through internal Sole Member mechanisms.” So one question would be if Jones Day agrees or disagrees with this opinion. Mike From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Seun Ojedeji Sent: Thursday, October 1, 2015 6:14 AM To: Jordan Carter Cc: accountability-cross-community@icann.org Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Lawyers' Meeting on Friday While I wish Bruce wisdom in answering your question. I don't understand how you conclude that it's erroneous. From my "very" little understanding of law, there are more than one way to achieve a goal and none of them lacks consequences (disadvantage). We have requested CCWG legal to provide their view about board proposal, I don't know what is more useful than that document produced(unless we don't trust CCWG legal as well). I mean, how differently would we have responded by seeing the notes other than the way we have to board's proposal That said, this does not mean I am discouraging transparency but just to indicate that our answer/solution to settle the current disagreement is most likely not in those notes. Regards Sent from my Asus Zenfone2 Kindly excuse brevity and typos. On 1 Oct 2015 10:24, "Jordan Carter" <jordan@internetnz.net.nz<mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz>> wrote: Hi Bruce What advice has Jones Day or ICANN's in house legal team given to the Board - either directly or through management - or directly to management - that has led to erroneous conclusions regarding whether or not the decisions to exercise powers on the part of a member can be constrained or not? Such erroneous conclusions were evident from the comments of some board members in Los Angeles. Can that advise or a summary of it be shared with the CCWG? Thanks Jordan On Thursday, 1 October 2015, Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au<mailto:Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au>> wrote: Hello Farzaneh,
I understand that the Board has made the Jones Day impact assessment available. But in a note it states that it has had discussions with advisors and staff. I would also like to request for any document that the Board has received in its discussion with the advisors and staff and notes of the deliberation of their meetings.
Yes our intent is to make all documents available. So far the only one that I am aware of is the Jones Day analysis that was published. We received verbal briefings form the Advisors to the CCWG (https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/Advisors) , and I understand these advisors also gave verbal briefings to the CCWG, as well as any written comments they have posted to the public comments forum. Regards, Bruce Tonkin _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community -- Jordan Carter Chief Executive, InternetNZ +64-21-442-649<tel:%2B64-21-442-649> | jordan@internetnz.net.nz<mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz> Sent on the run, apologies for brevity _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Seun, all I stand by my comment - the error is very narrow but very important: "whether or not the decisions to exercise powers on the part of a member can be constrained" We have had very clear advice from our counsel that this can be done. The board members in LA both in the meeting and in the corridors argued it can't, and they seemed to be arguing based on advice. If there was advice from their Lawyers I want us all to see it. If there was not, I want to know that too. Both are very reasonable questions. Cheers Jordan On Thursday, 1 October 2015, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> wrote:
While I wish Bruce wisdom in answering your question. I don't understand how you conclude that it's erroneous. From my "very" little understanding of law, there are more than one way to achieve a goal and none of them lacks consequences (disadvantage).
We have requested CCWG legal to provide their view about board proposal, I don't know what is more useful than that document produced(unless we don't trust CCWG legal as well). I mean, how differently would we have responded by seeing the notes other than the way we have to board's proposal
That said, this does not mean I am discouraging transparency but just to indicate that our answer/solution to settle the current disagreement is most likely not in those notes.
Regards Sent from my Asus Zenfone2 Kindly excuse brevity and typos. On 1 Oct 2015 10:24, "Jordan Carter" <jordan@internetnz.net.nz <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','jordan@internetnz.net.nz');>> wrote:
Hi Bruce
What advice has Jones Day or ICANN's in house legal team given to the Board - either directly or through management - or directly to management - that has led to erroneous conclusions regarding whether or not the decisions to exercise powers on the part of a member can be constrained or not?
Such erroneous conclusions were evident from the comments of some board members in Los Angeles.
Can that advise or a summary of it be shared with the CCWG?
Thanks Jordan
On Thursday, 1 October 2015, Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au');>> wrote:
Hello Farzaneh,
I understand that the Board has made the Jones Day impact assessment available. But in a note it states that it has had discussions with advisors and staff. I would also like to request for any document that the Board has received in its discussion with the advisors and staff and notes of the deliberation of their meetings.
Yes our intent is to make all documents available. So far the only one that I am aware of is the Jones Day analysis that was published.
We received verbal briefings form the Advisors to the CCWG ( https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/Advisors) , and I understand these advisors also gave verbal briefings to the CCWG, as well as any written comments they have posted to the public comments forum.
Regards, Bruce Tonkin
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
-- Jordan Carter Chief Executive, InternetNZ
+64-21-442-649 | jordan@internetnz.net.nz <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','jordan@internetnz.net.nz');>
Sent on the run, apologies for brevity
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org');> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
-- Jordan Carter Chief Executive, InternetNZ +64-21-442-649 | jordan@internetnz.net.nz Sent on the run, apologies for brevity
Dear CCWG, We are working on a memo as requested by the co-chairs after the meeting on Saturday that discusses how the Sole Member can be constrained in exercising statutory powers. We hope to be in position to supply this to you within the next day. Kind regards, Holly HOLLY J. GREGORY Partner and Co-Chair Global Corporate Governance & Executive Compensation Practice Sidley Austin LLP 787 Seventh Avenue New York, NY 10019 +1 212 839 5853 holly.gregory@sidley.com<mailto:holly.gregory@sidley.com> www.sidley.com<http://www.sidley.com/> [http://www.sidley.com/files/upload/signatures/SA-autosig.png]<http://www.sidley.com/> SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Jordan Carter Sent: Thursday, October 01, 2015 8:56 AM To: Seun Ojedeji Cc: accountability-cross-community@icann.org Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Lawyers' Meeting on Friday Seun, all I stand by my comment - the error is very narrow but very important: "whether or not the decisions to exercise powers on the part of a member can be constrained" We have had very clear advice from our counsel that this can be done. The board members in LA both in the meeting and in the corridors argued it can't, and they seemed to be arguing based on advice. If there was advice from their Lawyers I want us all to see it. If there was not, I want to know that too. Both are very reasonable questions. Cheers Jordan On Thursday, 1 October 2015, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com<mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com>> wrote: While I wish Bruce wisdom in answering your question. I don't understand how you conclude that it's erroneous. From my "very" little understanding of law, there are more than one way to achieve a goal and none of them lacks consequences (disadvantage). We have requested CCWG legal to provide their view about board proposal, I don't know what is more useful than that document produced(unless we don't trust CCWG legal as well). I mean, how differently would we have responded by seeing the notes other than the way we have to board's proposal That said, this does not mean I am discouraging transparency but just to indicate that our answer/solution to settle the current disagreement is most likely not in those notes. Regards Sent from my Asus Zenfone2 Kindly excuse brevity and typos. On 1 Oct 2015 10:24, "Jordan Carter" <jordan@internetnz.net.nz<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','jordan@internetnz.net.nz');>> wrote: Hi Bruce What advice has Jones Day or ICANN's in house legal team given to the Board - either directly or through management - or directly to management - that has led to erroneous conclusions regarding whether or not the decisions to exercise powers on the part of a member can be constrained or not? Such erroneous conclusions were evident from the comments of some board members in Los Angeles. Can that advise or a summary of it be shared with the CCWG? Thanks Jordan On Thursday, 1 October 2015, Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au');>> wrote: Hello Farzaneh,
I understand that the Board has made the Jones Day impact assessment available. But in a note it states that it has had discussions with advisors and staff. I would also like to request for any document that the Board has received in its discussion with the advisors and staff and notes of the deliberation of their meetings.
Yes our intent is to make all documents available. So far the only one that I am aware of is the Jones Day analysis that was published. We received verbal briefings form the Advisors to the CCWG (https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/Advisors<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_display_acctcrosscomm_Advisors&d=CQMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=1-1w8mU_eFprE2Nn9QnYf01XIV88MOwkXwHYEbF2Y_8&m=q1fJgwWq9e6Ee8Y34EUbrGHq64r_IFmZHql4hfJGqrU&s=--Mnlhn_IJ_T6ulR0eD2NGjX1nNQ9aEx3YZpgDs1RUw&e=>) , and I understand these advisors also gave verbal briefings to the CCWG, as well as any written comments they have posted to the public comments forum. Regards, Bruce Tonkin _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CQMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=1-1w8mU_eFprE2Nn9QnYf01XIV88MOwkXwHYEbF2Y_8&m=q1fJgwWq9e6Ee8Y34EUbrGHq64r_IFmZHql4hfJGqrU&s=JTWov3zL7-g82LPziKUlQQJHCkbGe73auZ-om3RNQjI&e=> -- Jordan Carter Chief Executive, InternetNZ +64-21-442-649<tel:%2B64-21-442-649> | jordan@internetnz.net.nz<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','jordan@internetnz.net.nz');> Sent on the run, apologies for brevity _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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=CQMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=1-1w8mU_eFprE2Nn9QnYf01XIV88MOwkXwHYEbF2Y_8&m=q1fJgwWq9e6Ee8Y34EUbrGHq64r_IFmZHql4hfJGqrU&s=JTWov3zL7-g82LPziKUlQQJHCkbGe73auZ-om3RNQjI&e=> -- 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 **************************************************************************************************** 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. ****************************************************************************************************
Hi Jordan,
"whether or not the decisions to exercise powers on the part of a member can be constrained”
This as you say is very narrow but important. It is clear that the statutory rights cannot be abrogated. So they will always be available. The question is how far they can be constrained. Constrained, to me, simply means how difficult can you make their exercise.
We have had very clear advice from our counsel that this can be done.
That is not my understanding. I think the advice has been that the lawyers believe it can be done but that there is no precedent to which they can point and therefore no guarantee that such a constraint would be upheld in court. In any event, it appears that some members of the CCWG believe that there should be access to some, if not all of the statutory rights that a member would have. Cheers, Chris
On 1 Oct 2015, at 22:55 , Jordan Carter <jordan@internetnz.net.nz> wrote:
Seun, all
I stand by my comment - the error is very narrow but very important:
"whether or not the decisions to exercise powers on the part of a member can be constrained"
We have had very clear advice from our counsel that this can be done. The board members in LA both in the meeting and in the corridors argued it can't, and they seemed to be arguing based on advice.
If there was advice from their Lawyers I want us all to see it.
If there was not, I want to know that too.
Both are very reasonable questions.
Cheers Jordan
On Thursday, 1 October 2015, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com <mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com>> wrote: While I wish Bruce wisdom in answering your question. I don't understand how you conclude that it's erroneous. From my "very" little understanding of law, there are more than one way to achieve a goal and none of them lacks consequences (disadvantage).
We have requested CCWG legal to provide their view about board proposal, I don't know what is more useful than that document produced(unless we don't trust CCWG legal as well). I mean, how differently would we have responded by seeing the notes other than the way we have to board's proposal
That said, this does not mean I am discouraging transparency but just to indicate that our answer/solution to settle the current disagreement is most likely not in those notes.
Regards Sent from my Asus Zenfone2 Kindly excuse brevity and typos.
On 1 Oct 2015 10:24, "Jordan Carter" <jordan@internetnz.net.nz <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','jordan@internetnz.net.nz');>> wrote: Hi Bruce
What advice has Jones Day or ICANN's in house legal team given to the Board - either directly or through management - or directly to management - that has led to erroneous conclusions regarding whether or not the decisions to exercise powers on the part of a member can be constrained or not?
Such erroneous conclusions were evident from the comments of some board members in Los Angeles.
Can that advise or a summary of it be shared with the CCWG?
Thanks Jordan
On Thursday, 1 October 2015, Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au');>> wrote: Hello Farzaneh,
I understand that the Board has made the Jones Day impact assessment available. But in a note it states that it has had discussions with advisors and staff. I would also like to request for any document that the Board has received in its discussion with the advisors and staff and notes of the deliberation of their meetings.
Yes our intent is to make all documents available. So far the only one that I am aware of is the Jones Day analysis that was published.
We received verbal briefings form the Advisors to the CCWG (https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/Advisors <https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/Advisors>) , and I understand these advisors also gave verbal briefings to the CCWG, as well as any written comments they have posted to the public comments forum.
Regards, Bruce Tonkin
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community>
-- Jordan Carter Chief Executive, InternetNZ +64-21-442-649 <tel:%2B64-21-442-649> | jordan@internetnz.net.nz <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','jordan@internetnz.net.nz');> Sent on the run, apologies for brevity
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org');> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community>
-- 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
The Board’s proposal relies entirely on it’s statutory rights to be constrained by bylaws. If there is some question as to the sufficiency of relying on bylaw changes to constrain (or enshrine) rights, then all the more reason for a member model to make the rights statutory. From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Chris Disspain Sent: Thursday, October 1, 2015 9:05 PM To: Jordan Carter Cc: accountability-cross-community@icann.org Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Lawyers' Meeting on Friday Hi Jordan, "whether or not the decisions to exercise powers on the part of a member can be constrained” This as you say is very narrow but important. It is clear that the statutory rights cannot be abrogated. So they will always be available. The question is how far they can be constrained. Constrained, to me, simply means how difficult can you make their exercise. We have had very clear advice from our counsel that this can be done. That is not my understanding. I think the advice has been that the lawyers believe it can be done but that there is no precedent to which they can point and therefore no guarantee that such a constraint would be upheld in court. In any event, it appears that some members of the CCWG believe that there should be access to some, if not all of the statutory rights that a member would have. Cheers, Chris On 1 Oct 2015, at 22:55 , Jordan Carter <jordan@internetnz.net.nz<mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz>> wrote: Seun, all I stand by my comment - the error is very narrow but very important: "whether or not the decisions to exercise powers on the part of a member can be constrained" We have had very clear advice from our counsel that this can be done. The board members in LA both in the meeting and in the corridors argued it can't, and they seemed to be arguing based on advice. If there was advice from their Lawyers I want us all to see it. If there was not, I want to know that too. Both are very reasonable questions. Cheers Jordan On Thursday, 1 October 2015, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com<mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com>> wrote: While I wish Bruce wisdom in answering your question. I don't understand how you conclude that it's erroneous. From my "very" little understanding of law, there are more than one way to achieve a goal and none of them lacks consequences (disadvantage). We have requested CCWG legal to provide their view about board proposal, I don't know what is more useful than that document produced(unless we don't trust CCWG legal as well). I mean, how differently would we have responded by seeing the notes other than the way we have to board's proposal That said, this does not mean I am discouraging transparency but just to indicate that our answer/solution to settle the current disagreement is most likely not in those notes. Regards Sent from my Asus Zenfone2 Kindly excuse brevity and typos. On 1 Oct 2015 10:24, "Jordan Carter" <jordan@internetnz.net.nz<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','jordan@internetnz.net.nz');>> wrote: Hi Bruce What advice has Jones Day or ICANN's in house legal team given to the Board - either directly or through management - or directly to management - that has led to erroneous conclusions regarding whether or not the decisions to exercise powers on the part of a member can be constrained or not? Such erroneous conclusions were evident from the comments of some board members in Los Angeles. Can that advise or a summary of it be shared with the CCWG? Thanks Jordan On Thursday, 1 October 2015, Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au');>> wrote: Hello Farzaneh,
I understand that the Board has made the Jones Day impact assessment available. But in a note it states that it has had discussions with advisors and staff. I would also like to request for any document that the Board has received in its discussion with the advisors and staff and notes of the deliberation of their meetings.
Yes our intent is to make all documents available. So far the only one that I am aware of is the Jones Day analysis that was published. We received verbal briefings form the Advisors to the CCWG (https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/Advisors) , and I understand these advisors also gave verbal briefings to the CCWG, as well as any written comments they have posted to the public comments forum. Regards, Bruce Tonkin _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community -- Jordan Carter Chief Executive, InternetNZ +64-21-442-649<tel:%2B64-21-442-649> | jordan@internetnz.net.nz<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','jordan@internetnz.net.nz');> Sent on the run, apologies for brevity _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org');> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community -- 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<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
"That is not my understanding. I think the advice has been that the lawyers believe it can be done but that there is no precedent to which they can point and therefore no guarantee that such a constraint would be upheld in court." In the past, our legal counsel has been very good at identifying things that were in theory possible, but for which there was no know precedent or legal decisions which had "tested" the idea. I would appreciate confirmation that this concept of restricting use of statutory power (for instance by enshrining in the Bylaws that the power could only be used with the unanimous agreement of all AC/SOs) has in fact been tested in California courts. Alan At 01/10/2015 09:05 PM, Chris Disspain wrote:
Hi Jordan,
"whether or not the decisions to exercise powers on the part of a member can be constrainedâ
This as you say is very narrow but important. It is clear that the statutory rights cannot be abrogated. So they will always be available. The question is how far they can be constrained. Constrained, to me, simply means how difficult can you make their exercise.
We have had very clear advice from our counsel that this can be done.
That is not my understanding. I think the advice has been that the lawyers believe it can be done but that there is no precedent to which they can point and therefore no guarantee that such a constraint would be upheld in court.
In any event, it appears that some members of the CCWG believe that there should be access to some, if not all of the statutory rights that a member would have.
Cheers,
Chris
On 1 Oct 2015, at 22:55 , Jordan Carter <<mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz>jordan@internetnz.net.nz> wrote:
Seun, all
I stand by my comment - the error is very narrow but very important:
"whether or not the decisions to exercise powers on the part of a member can be constrained"
We have had very clear advice from our counsel that this can be done. The board members in LA both in the meeting and in the corridors argued it can't, and they seemed to be arguing based on advice.
If there was advice from their Lawyers I want us all to see it.
If there was not, I want to know that too.
Both are very reasonable questions.
Cheers Jordan
On Thursday, 1 October 2015, Seun Ojedeji <<mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com>seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> wrote:
While I wish Bruce wisdom in answering your question. I don't understand how you conclude that it's erroneous. From my "very" little understanding of law, there are more than one way to achieve a goal and none of them lacks consequences (disadvantage).
We have requested CCWG legal to provide their view about board proposal, I don't know what is more useful than that document produced(unless we don't trust CCWG legal as well). I mean, how differently would we have responded by seeing the notes other than the way we have to board's proposal
That said, this does not mean I am discouraging transparency but just to indicate that our answer/solution to settle the current disagreement is most likely not in those notes.
Regards Sent from my Asus Zenfone2 Kindly excuse brevity and typos. On 1 Oct 2015 10:24, "Jordan Carter" <jordan@internetnz.net.nz> wrote: Hi Bruce
What advice has Jones Day or ICANN's in house legal team given to the Board - either directly or through management - or directly to management - that has led to erroneous conclusions regarding whether or not the decisions to exercise powers on the part of a member can be constrained or not?
Such erroneous conclusions were evident from the comments of some board members in Los Angeles.
Can that advise or a summary of it be shared with the CCWG?
Thanks Jordan
On Thursday, 1 October 2015, Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au> wrote: Hello Farzaneh,
I understand that the Board has made the Jones Day impact assessment available. But in a note it states that it has had discussions with advisors and staff. I would also like to request for any document that the Board has received in its discussion with the advisors and staff and notes of the deliberation of their meetings.
Yes our intent is to make all documents available. So far the only one that I am aware of is the Jones Day analysis that was published.
We received verbal briefings form the Advisors to the CCWG (<https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/Advisors>https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/Advisors) , and I understand these advisors also gave verbal briefings to the CCWG, as well as any written comments they have posted to the public comments forum.
Regards, Bruce Tonkin
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
-- Jordan Carter Chief Executive, InternetNZ
<tel:%2B64-21-442-649>+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>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
-- Jordan Carter Chief Executive, InternetNZ
+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
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
participants (6)
-
Alan Greenberg -
Chartier, Mike S -
Chris Disspain -
Gregory, Holly -
Jordan Carter -
Seun Ojedeji