[CCWG-ACCT] community powers comparison: designator & membership model - what powers can we create and how to enforce them?

[Robin Gross]

Thanks, Greg.  I actually agree that the kind of intra-enforcement mechanisms needed that are short of a lawsuit could be created for either model.  This could be the right place for an Independent Appeals Process - so these specific rights could be enforced by internal mechanisms without the need to go to a court as surely this is preferred in either model and should considered by both models at play.  It is becoming clearer that we may need that process with either model to resolve these disputes.

Thanks,
Robin


On Apr 14, 2015, at 12:19 PM, Greg Shatan wrote:

> Robin,
> 
> Thank you for this.  A great deal of effort clearly went into this and this should develop into a very useful tool.  However, I think we will need to have this reviewed by legal counsel before we rely on it.  Having reviewed this briefly, I am uncertain that at this stage this document accurately captures the legal advice, particularly with regard to how the rights can be enforced.  
> 
> Specifically, this seems to give the impression that, if the membership model were chosen, the members would be limited to running off to court in most cases should rights need to be enforced.  I'm fairly confident that is not the case.  I believe that the remedies listed for the designator model, particularly changes to the bylaws and the IRP, are equally available in the member model.  With regard to litigation, I think the distinction is that the designators have no ability to litigate on behalf of the corporation, while this is one possibility (but far from the only one) available to members.  In other words, such litigation is an extra power, not the only power, available to members.
> 
> The Legal Sub Team (copied here) should discuss how to proceed.
> 
> Thank you again for taking the laboring oar in pulling this together!
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> Greg
> 
> On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 2:35 PM, Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org> wrote:
> Hello Team,
> 
> What we need to do is take a hard look at both the membership model and the designator model and understand what rights can be created and how will they be enforced.  Once we understand what we *can* do, we need to look at the pros/cons of the different models and evaluate accordingly.
> 
> But first, we need to understand what *can* be done so we can discuss *if* we ought to do it and what is the best means.
> 
> So I've taken a first pass of each of the 6 community empowerment goals and created a comparison table to lay-out what rights can be created and how they can be enforced.  I've combed through all the 200+ pages of legal memos, today's CCWG call, and calls of the legal sub-team to compile this info into one table so the models can begin to be evaluated side-by-side.
> 
> The doc is attached and also here is a link to the table comparing the 2 models:
>   https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1kkkRBpMUkTpD5_RP_Ogo1PTGzGt2kC6f1xooHfJXRBc/edit?usp=sharing
> 
> I am hopeful it can begin to help us to wrap our minds around what our goals are and how they could be accomplished by the two models at play.
> 
> Thanks,
> Robin
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
> 
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20150414/3a6b2eb3/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 496 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20150414/3a6b2eb3/signature.asc>