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

Tue Oct 13 01:18:07 UTC 2015

Nigel

Help us who weren't there read between the lines -- is this the HLIG saying that the CCWG-A proposal is more to be respected than the Boards MEM revision.  That is how I read it, which would be powerful, but I don't want to overstate it if that is an inaccurate interpretation

Paul

Paul Rosenzweig
paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com 
O: +1 (202) 547-0660
M: +1 (202) 329-9650
VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739
Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066
Link to my PGP Key

-----Original Message-----
From: Nigel Roberts [mailto:nigel at channelisles.net] 
Sent: Sunday, October 11, 2015 4:21 AM
To: accountability-cross-community at icann.org
Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Need for clarity on enforcement mechanisms for Dublin

Enforceability was a key theme I heard at the European's Commission's HLIG at the CENTR meeting in Brussels.

They also said:
> We wish to reiterate our support to the Cross-Community Working Group on the IANA Stewardship Transition (CWG) and to the work of the IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG).

and that

> The outcome will only have the necessary legitimacy if the bottom-up, consensus-driven process continues to be fully respected.

http://www.domainpulp.com/icann/centr-and-commission-meet-and-discuss-icann-accountability/

On 11/10/15 08:56, Matthew Shears wrote:
> 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/>https://icann.adobeconne
>> ct.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-Oc
>> tober/006125.html>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 weâ€™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
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Avast logo <https://www.avast.com/antivirus> 	
>
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> www.avast.com <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
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community