[CCWG-ACCT] Regarding ICANN's adherence to "international law"

[Carrie Devorah]

I had a different expectation of what a 'stress test' would be. So I am
clear, a stress test is just a conversation of hypotheticals of what could
go wrong?
Sincerely
Carrie Devorah

On Sun, Mar 15, 2015 at 6:55 PM, Phil Buckingham <phil at dotadvice.co.uk>
wrote:

> David,
>
>
>
> Perhaps……
>
>
>
> + 4. did the Board act/ vote  unanimously. Were there abstensions –
> (through potential conflict of interest)
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Phil
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org [mailto:
> accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org] *On Behalf Of *David
> Post
> *Sent:* 15 March 2015 13:26
> *To:* Accountability Cross Community
> *Subject:* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Regarding ICANN's adherence to "international
> law"
>
>
>
> At 08:16 PM 3/14/2015, Bruce Tonkin wrote:
>
> Under its Articles of Incorporation ICANN already operates “for the
> benefit of the Internet community as a whole, carrying out its activities
> in conformity with relevant principles of international law and applicable
> international conventions and local law.†   See:
> https://www.icann.org/en/about/governance/articles
>
> The Independent Review Process allows parties to challenge Board decisions
> that are inconsistent with the Articles of Incorporation or Bylaws.
>
> [SNIP]
>
>
> Just by way of clarification, while it's true that the IRP allows parties
> "to challenge Board decisions that are inconsistent with the Articles of
> Incorporation or Bylaws," the IRP panel does not have the power to actually
> decide the question of whether or not a Board decision WAS inconsistent
> with the Articles or Bylaws.  See Bylaws, Art IV sec 3(4):
>
> "The IRP Panel must apply a defined standard of review to the IRP request,
> focusing on:
>
>    1. did the Board act without conflict of interest in taking its
>       decision?;
>       2. did the Board exercise due diligence and care in having a
>       reasonable amount of facts in front of them?; and
>       3. did the Board members exercise independent judgment in taking
>       the decision, believed to be in the best interests of the company?"
>
> That's a much narrower scope of inquiry than whether the Board acted
> outside the ByLaws, for example.
>
> David
>
> *******************************
> David G Post - Senior Fellow, Open Technology Institute/New America
> Foundation
> blog (Volokh Conspiracy) http://www.washingtonpost.com/people/david-post
> book (Jefferson's Moose)  http://tinyurl.com/c327w2n
> <http://tinyurl.com/c327w2n%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0>
> music http://tinyurl.com/davidpostmusic publications etc.  http://www.davidpost.com
>
> *******************************
>
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>
>


-- 
Sincerely
CARRIE Devorah
 562 688 2883



DISCLAIMER :
With the continuing crossing and interfacing of platforms both on & off
line both with & without our knowledge nor approval to note nothing sent
over the Internet anymore is ever private nor should be presumed to be so.
If it is that much of a secret, say nothing. If you must? Take a lesson
from our military- hand write the note, chew then swallow
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20150315/cc2b23ad/attachment.html>