[CCWG-ACCT] Continued Counsel Dialogue

[Avri Doria]

Hi,

Ultimately yes, they can all end up in court.

The critical issue in my mind is how many steps we can take inside the
organizations process to remedy before having to resort to the ultimate
nastyness - appearing before a judge. I think each trip to court is a
failure to be avoided.  Our model needs to deal properly with shared
decision making while allowing for problem resolution in a way that
avoids such failures.

avri


On 02-Oct-15 18:21, Chris Disspain wrote:
> I don’t disagree with you Avri but isn’t going to court the ultimate
> enforceability in any of the models/ideas we have been discussing?
>
>
>
> Cheers,
>
>
> Chris
>
>
>> On 2 Oct 2015, at 21:07 , Avri Doria <avri at acm.org
>> <mailto:avri at acm.org>> wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Within ICANN, it rests with the Board.
>>
>> I resist the idea of including going to court as a normal part of our
>> process.  I have argued all the way through this process, that going to
>> court is something to be avoided and something we should not consider to
>> be part of the process.  Yes at the end of the day it needs to be
>> possible, but it is a failure indication.
>>
>> avri
>>
>>
>> On 02-Oct-15 06:57, Chris Disspain wrote:
>>> No Avri. At the end of the day it rests with the court as I believe is
>>> clear from the note from JD.
>>>
>>> After a finding by an arbitration panel that a bylaw has been
>>> breached, it is a matter for the Board about how they remedy (as I
>>> believe is the case with the member model also) and that remedy is
>>> itself subject to a claim that it breaches a bylaw (if the community
>>> has consensus). If the Board refuses to abide by the ruling then a
>>> court can order them to do so.
>>>
>>> Have I misunderstood the way the member model works. I believe Becky
>>> has said numerous times that the only finding could be that the
>>> relevant bylaw has been breached, NOT that the Board must take a
>>> specific action. Is that wrong?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>>
>>>
>>> Chris
>>>
>>>
>>>> On 2 Oct 2015, at 20:46 , Avri Doria <avri at acm.org
>>>> <mailto:avri at acm.org>
>>>> <mailto:avri at acm.org>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> That was one of my favorite lines as well.
>>>>
>>>> And is a key point.  In the current model, and as far as I can tell in
>>>> the MEM, at the end of the day, all always rests "within the Board's
>>>> discretion."
>>>>
>>>> avri
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 02-Oct-15 05:29, Dr Eberhard W Lisse wrote:
>>>>> I really LOVE this one:
>>>>>
>>>>> [...]
>>>>> "the Board is required to remedy that violation, within the
>>>>> Board’s discretion."
>>>>> [...]
>>>>>
>>>>> (last line on Page 1)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ---
>>>> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
>>>> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>>>> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>>> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>>> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>
>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>>
>>
>> ---
>> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
>> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus