Wendy Seltzer wrote:
On the other hand, if the MoU is not a contract, it doesn't provide the signing ALSs or RALO any remedies if ICANN breaches the terms of its agreement such as by failing to support the secretariat, failing to make documents available, or continued lack of transparency. Perhaps the ALSs want stronger remedies -- i.e., maybe we want to push for a real contract with a real possibility of money damages.
"We" (at least speaking for my personal participation in this "we") will NOT push for a "real contract" or monetary penalties, especially from a non-profit. In fact, "we" (from my POV) will actively oppose it. My ALS joined this process in order to assist ICANN, not aquire a collective opportunity to sue it. I for one am happy to go along with the process Nick described that LAC had done, in electing the reps upon completion of the MOU. As for contracts versus MOUs, if I am in the minority and people here really want the abilility to sue ICANN, then at least set the jurisdiction in Canada or somewhere else which has real social and/or legal disincentives to frivolous litigation. - Evan