[CCWG-ACCT] Need for clarity on enforcement mechanisms for Dublin

[Matthew Shears]

Thanks for circulating this Grace.

I would certainly support - _and believe it should be a priority for 
Dublin_ - having a very clear understanding (in chart form or other) of 
the enforcement mechanisms for each of the powers under the SMM, 
Designator and MEM models as noted in the second bullet in the Action 
for lawyers section below.  Hopefully much of this has analysis been 
done and won't take to much additional work.

Thanks.

Matthew

On 08/10/2015 18:14, Grace Abuhamad wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> The notes, recordings and transcripts for the Briefing with Counsel 
> for Plan B Proposal Meeting  - Thursday 8 October 2015 @ 21:00 UTC
>
>  will be available here: https://community.icann.org/x/BahYAw
>
> A copy of the notes may be found below.
>
> AC room recording: https://icann.adobeconnect.com/p46pejy7tf3/
>
> *Briefing with Counsel for Plan B Proposal Meeting  - Thursday 8 
> October 2015 @ 21:00 UTC*
>
>
> *Attendees in AC room: *
>
> CCWG: Steve DelBianco; Jonathan Zuck; Kavouss Arasteh
>
> Counsel: Ingrid Mittermaier; Michael Clark; Rosemary Fei (and Ed 
> McNicholas and Holly Gregory on the phone line only)
>
>
> *Notes:*
>
>
> Today's discussion revolves around the text here: 
> http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/2015-October/006125.html 
>
>
>
> Kavouss added an edit (underlined here):
>
> 1. Power to block a proposed Operating Plan/Strat Plan/Budget with  
> limitation on rejection/ Veto ( maximum 3 times )
>
> 2. Power to approve changes to Fundamental Bylaws and Articles of 
> Incorporation.
>
> 3. Power to block changes to  standard Blaws.
>
> 4. Power to appoint and remove individual board Directors possibly 
> with the approval of the entire community
>
> 5. Power to recall the entire board of Directors
>
> 6. Mechanism for binding IRP where a panel decision is enforceable in 
> any court recognizing international arbitration results — even if 
> ICCANNs Board refused to participate in the binding arbitration.  
> (assuming  CCWG lawyers verify this works without activating a 
> Membership model)
>
> All decision taken on the above would require consensus , without more 
> than two Advice against that ( non-voting of ACs)
>
> I think we are close enough to get consensus around the above powers 
> before we leave Dublin.   And based on what we’ve heard recently, 
> the board will support the powers described above.
>
>
> *Action for Steve/Jonathan: *revise chart per call discussions (MEM / 
> Single Designator / Single Member) and send to lawyers before they can 
> proceed with their work.
>
>
> *Actions for lawyers*:
>
>   * Assess level of effort to do 2-part project as follows:
>   * Part 1: completing the chart shown in AC. The chart shows the 6
>     Powers and their enforcement in Board's MEM (within Bylaws),
>     Designator, Sole Member. For first pass, only do each of the  3 as
>     described. (If there is extra time, the lawyers can study options
>     for personhood for SO/ACs in the models).
>   * Part 2: Plan B design and lockdown
>
>
> Lawyers would like for this to be a priority if this needs to be ready 
> by Dublin.
>
>
> The more the documents can look simpler, the better. Minimal change is 
> preferred.
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

-- 

Matthew Shears
Director - Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
Center for Democracy & Technology
mshears at cdt.org
+ 44 771 247 2987



---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20151011/9e6dc6ad/attachment.html>