[CCWG-ACCT] Lawyers' Meeting on Friday

[Nigel Roberts]

I don't wish to throw a spanner in the works, but I'm confused.

Legitimacy derives from membership. Designing systems to prevent members 
of an organisation from exercising their statutory rights seems to me to 
be functionally bassackwards and "wrong" in a psychological sense.

My perception is we are focussing too much on implementation and not 
enough on getting agreement on the fundamentals.

Such as "are there any circumstances under which the current Board of 
ICANN would support any form of membership as an accountability measure?"

That's a yes/no question. I keep hearing that there is a definite and 
definitive answer to it, which most colleagues appear to be pretending 
they haven't heard.

Am I correct?

If so, can someone please repeat the answer?



On 10/02/2015 08:43 AM, Bruce Tonkin wrote:
> Hello Jordan,
>
>>>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?
>
> I will check to see if we have received any legal advice on that topic
> and share it with the group.
>
> I think as Chris noted you can’t actually limit a statutory power, but
> the idea is to limit what the member does via the member’s own operating
> procedures. There is probably still nothing stopping the member though
> if it actually wanted to use the statutory power.   Ie the member has
> legal standing and can still enforce its statutory powers under
> California law.
>
> Regards,
>
> Bruce Tonkin
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>