[CCWG-ACCT] Suggested text for designaor model

Kavouss Arasteh kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com
Wed Apr 29 13:34:03 UTC 2015


Dear All,
Thanks to those commented.
I have the following comments
1. We need to specify or cross reference those 6 power out of which 4 could
be acheived by designators in existing status or with some modificastions
into an unincorporated association.
Pls then take necessary steps to define 6  powers and  out of which the 4
powers.
2, In all draft we refer to the removal of the Board's member .In fact we
meant removal of individual Board's member versus recalling the entire
Board.3.We should also clearly mention " Standard Bylaws " and "
Fundamental Bylaws in round barcker wheneverr we refer to Balaws
4. WE should explicitly mention that for the two remaining power ( budget
and strategy) evenif we establish an unincorporated association from SOs
and ACs .To be enpowered to exercise zthe latter two powers the community
needs to opt for "mEMBER dODEL" as described below
I do not wish to do some editing and thus request those dear colleagues who
already did the above-mentioned edits to further edit their text to include
my suggestion
Kavouss

2015-04-29 15:13 GMT+02:00 Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com>:

> Holly,
>
> It appears that Izumi has withdrawn that text in favor of the text
> proposed by Robin, which appears in the proposed agenda and in the email
> from Robin that I forwarded to this list.  I would suggest you review and
> respond to Robin's  text instead (and I note that Robin's email has some
> other related proposed changes as well, which I think you should at least
> look over).
>
> However, I think it would also be important to clarify two points
> underlying Izumi's text:
>
> Whether the current system for selecting Board members is a designator
> system as defined by the California code.
>
> Whether a designator system will work with the SO/ACs in their current
> state.
>
> Thanks!
>
> Greg
>
> On Wednesday, April 29, 2015, List for the work of CCWG-Accountability
> Legal SubTeam <ccwg-accountability5 at icann.org> wrote:
>
>>  Greg, we agree with your concerns regarding the language highlighted.
>> Please let us know if you would like us to mark up the suggested text.
>> Holly
>>
>>
>>
>> Sent with Good (www.good.com)
>>
>> ------------------------------
>> *From:* ccwg-accountability5-bounces at icann.org on behalf of List for the
>> work of CCWG-Accountability Legal SubTeam
>> *Sent:* Wednesday, April 29, 2015 12:14:09 AM
>> *To:* Izumi Okutani; ccwg-accountability5 at icann.org
>> *Cc:* Accountability Cross Community
>> *Subject:* Re: [Acct-Legal] [CCWG-ACCT] Suggested text for designaor
>> model
>>
>>   I am forwarding this email into the Legal Subteam for discussion and
>> possible referral to counsel.
>>
>>  In the "suggested text," which I've pasted in below, I believe the text
>> that I have highlighted and bolded is contrary to the advice we have
>> received from Sidley/Adler and in some cases may inadvertently misstate
>> that advice.  Rather than pick it apart here, I think it makes more sense
>> to discuss this with Sidley/Adler and then bring it back to the full list
>> or the next full meeting if need be.
>>
>>  Greg
>>
>>  SUGGESTED TEXT
>>
>> f) Designators are a construct in California law that can achieve some of
>> the powers proposed below - *As ICANN's SOs/ACs struture is consistent
>> with this model,* "the selection and removal of Board members" and "the approval
>> or blocking of changes to bylaws" can be achieved by changing the ByLaws to
>> define the role of SOs/ACs as designators,* without the need to organise
>> unincorporated association. *But they cannot reliably deliver other
>> aspects of the set of powers the CCWG believes the community needs, *such
>> as statutory power for full board dismissal* and ability to have legal
>> standing in court for enforcement of rights, if it is to fully hold ICANN
>> to account.
>> Crucially, in the view of our counsel, *to have dismissal of the entire
>> board and for legal enforcement of rights in court, **would require some
>> additional contractual relationships between SOs/ACs and ICANN, which would
>> also oblige SOs and ACs to establish themselves into unincorporated
>> associations,* so some of the perceived simplicity compared with the
>> membership model isn't actually achievable.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 4:13 PM, Izumi Okutani <izumi at nic.ad.jp> wrote:
>>
>>> Dear all,
>>>
>>>
>>> As mentioned at the # 30 CCWG call, I'd like to suggest text changes for
>>> 6.6.1.1 f).
>>>
>>>
>>> 6.6.1.1 The Community Mechanism: Reference
>>> Mechanism
>>>
>>> CURRENT TEXT
>>> Designators are a construct in California law that can achieve some of
>>> the powers proposed below ‐
>>> mainly those regarding the selection and removal of Board members and
>>> the approval or blocking of
>>> changes to bylaws. But they cannot reliably deliver other aspects of the
>>> set of powers the CCWG
>>> believes the community needs, if it is to fully hold ICANN to account.
>>> Crucially, in the view of our
>>> counsel, this would also oblige the SOs and ACs to organise themselves
>>> into unincorporated
>>> associations ‐ and so some perceived simplicity compared with the
>>> membership model isn’t actually
>>> possible.
>>>
>>> SUGGESTED TEXT
>>>
>>> f) Designators are a construct in California law that can achieve some
>>> of the powers proposed below - As ICANN's SOs/ACs struture is consistent
>>> with this model, "the selection and removal of Board members" and "the
>>> approval or blocking of changes to bylaws" can be achieved by changing
>>> the ByLaws to define the role of SOs/ACs as designators, without the need
>>> to organise unincorporated association. But they cannot reliably deliver
>>> other aspects of the set of powers the CCWG believes the community needs,
>>> such as statutory power for full board dismissal and ability to have legal
>>> standing in court for enforcement of rights, if it is to fully hold ICANN
>>> to account.
>>> Crucially, in the view of our counsel, to have dismissal of the entire
>>> board and for legal enforcement of rights in court, would require some
>>> additional contractual relationships between SOs/ACs and ICANN, which would
>>> also oblige SOs and ACs to establish themselves into unincorporated
>>> associations, so some of the perceived simplicity compared with the
>>> membership model isn't actually achievable.
>>>
>>>
>>> Izumi
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>>> Accountability-Cross-Community at 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=AwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=1-1w8mU_eFprE2Nn9QnYf01XIV88MOwkXwHYEbF2Y_8&m=NR0PsiETMMHqEGWsEqsM3TUsDna9ar0VbKWCOQ7FQW8&s=p6H8i0OOhnuZDyDBKgA60-XF101UdXEKqdEXq__wOgc&e=>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ****************************************************************************************************
>> 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.
>>
>>
>> ****************************************************************************************************
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20150429/4b2e994c/attachment.html>


More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list