[CCWG-ACCT] A contractual solution for the "membership"/accountability problem

Tue Oct 13 23:19:56 UTC 2015

We may technically forego the ability to compel 
ICANN to divest itself of PTI. But I do not think 
that the statutes say anything about deciding to 
sub-contract the IANA function to some other 
entity - leaving PTI as an empty shell with 
nothing to do. Leaving the IANA function within 
PTI and divesting ourselves of PTI is one way to 
move the function, but not at all the only way.

Alan

At 13/10/2015 06:40 PM, Mailing List for the 
ICANN Accountability & Governance Cross Co wrote:
>Hi,
>
>I understand that we also forgo separability if we do not have a member
>model.
>
>avri
>
>On 13-Oct-15 18:17, Mailing List for the ICANN Accountability &
>Governance Cross Community Group wrote:
> > Yes I read it. It does say that the line is unclear, but that certain
> > responsibilities cannot be delegated including budget and strategic.
> > Plan. Our lawyers have been clear for a long time that budget and plan
> > veto are problematic in a non-member situation. And that matches the
> > Board's position that to give this up impacts their fiduciary duty
> > (and I agree).
> >
> > The ALAC has said it would reluctantly accept the member model, but it
> > is not our preference, and that implies we are willing to forego the
> > budget/plan veto.
> >
> > Alan
> >
> > At 13/10/2015 05:45 PM, Aikman-Scalese, Anne wrote:
> >> Alan, did you read the Sidley memo Mathieu circulated that says the
> >> in the current corporate structure, the ICANN Board cannot delegate
> >> decision-making in relation to the corporation to any third party,
> >> including via binding arbitration?  This is on page 2 of the
> >> Appendix.  Wouldn't that also impact a contract theory where
> >> decision-making in relation to budget/plan veto is delegated via
> >> contract to the party on the other side of the contract?
> >> Anne
> >>
> >> Anne E. Aikman-Scalese
> >> Of Counsel
> >> Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP |
> >> One South Church Avenue Suite 700
> >> Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611
> >> (T) 520.629.4428 | (F) 520.879.4725
> >> AAikman at lrrlaw.com | www.LRRLaw.com
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org
> >> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf
> >> Of Alan Greenberg
> >> Sent: Tuesday, October 13, 2015 1:36 PM
> >> To: David Post; Accountability Cross Community
> >> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] A contractual solution for the
> >> "membership"/accountability problem
> >>
> >> With the usual "I am not a lawyer disclosure", my understanding is
> >> that the Bylaws are effectively a contract. In all of the contructs
> >> (whether it is the CMSM, CMSD or (my most recent proposal)
> >> CMSanything, there is an UA composed of the AC/SO (or a subset), or
> >> in the earlier models multiple UA, one per AC/SO. In the Board
> >> proposal, since I do not believe that the AC/SO Chairs are willing to
> >> assume responsibility for taking actions personally (nor should they
> >> be expected to), there would also have to be an UA formed to act on
> >> behalf of the AC/SOs. As I understand it, the UA would have to exist
> >> at the time the of the violation or act that it was complaining
> >> about, so that really implies it would have to exist at the start
> >> (since one cannot predict when trouble will arise.
> >>
> >> So in my mind, the CMSx, the Board proposal, and your new one all
> >> really have a common construct of a UA acting on behalf of the
> >> AC/SOs. The differences are in how the "contract" or the Bylaws allow
> >> the UA to act.
> >>
> >> The recent legal briefing on our current model (ie in the Bylaws
> >> today) says that although the AC/SOs and NomCom that appoint board
> >> members are not called designators, for all intents, they are. The
> >> new constructs (any of them) would allow the AC/SOs or a subset to
> >> exercise the powers other than appointment of directors. We have been
> >> told (by CCWG lawyers) that these powers are enforceable (other than
> >> budget/plan veto).
> >>
> >>  From a practical point of view, I think that all of the proposals
> >> are in fact very close to each other, but the different terminology
> >> and in some cases, a lack of precision masks that similarity.
> >>
> >> Alan
> >>
> >> At 13/10/2015 04:08 PM, David Post wrote:
> >>
> >> >To all:
> >> >
> >> >David Johnson and I have been developing an idea that might be able to
> >> >break the impasse between the Board and the stakeholders regarding the
> >> >membership model as a vehicle for community control over the Board's
> >> >actions.  Here's David's description of the overall idea:
> >> >
> >> >ICANN Accountability Â Back to Contract
> >> >
> >> >There is broad agreement that the community powers recommended by the
> >> >CCWG should be "enforceable"?. The proposal assumes that the
> >> >Unincorporated Association that would enforce them would have to be
> >> >created by, and made the sole "member"? of ICANN, by means of an
> >> >amendment to ICANN's bylaws. Only the Board can amend the bylaws, and
> >> >they do not want to create a member. This would appear to create an
> >> >unresolvable stalemate. Until one recalls the scene from Indiana Jones
> >> >when, treated by a knife twirling thug, the hero remembers that he has
> >> >a gun and uses it.
> >> >
> >> >As CCWG's counsel have noted, an unincorporated association can be
> >> >formed by any group with the requisite intent, with minimal formality.
> >> >So the community UA, consisting of and acting only at the direction of
> >> >the SOs and ACs that make up the ICANN community, could be formed
> >> >directly by the actions of that community. The UA, now a legal person,
> >> >could enter into contracts (using whatever decision-making process is
> >> >provided in the UA's own bylaws). It could, for example, make an offer
> >> >to enter into a contract with ICANN itself. Such a contract might
> >> >provide that ICANN would promise to adopt and abide by a specified set
> >> >of bylaws (notably, those providing for community powers and an
> >> >enhanced IRP). The contract could provide for specific performance and
> >> >dispute resolution (not unlike the MEM, but with the group doing the
> >> >"enforcing"? having been formed in advance of any bylaw violation). The
> >> >contract could make individual SOs and ACs, or even subcomponents of
> >> >these, into third party beneficiaries entitled to enforce the
> >> >contractual promises as against the ICANN corporation. In light of
> >> >these commitments, the community UA could itself then promise to give
> >> >its collective approval to the IANA transition.
> >> >
> >> >ICANN's Board would still need to agree to any such contract, to make
> >> >it binding. But the Board would no longer have an objection based on
> >> >supposed dangers of creating a "member"?. It has said it agrees that
> >> >the proposed community powers should be enforceable, and that IRP
> >> >decisions enforcing revised bylaws and mission statement should be
> >> >binding. The CCWG can reach its own consensus on what contractual terms
> >> >(what draft bylaws to include by reference and what community
> >> >decision-making process to use regarding decisions to offer and enforce
> >> >the contract). It would be difficult for the Board to refuse to sign
> >> >such a contract Â once supported and offered by an Unincorporated
> >> >Association consisting of the community and acting with requisite
> >> consensus).
> >> >
> >> >The community only supported "membership"?
> >> >because this was thought to be the only way to make the proposed
> >> >community powers enforceable against a reluctant ICANN board. If there
> >> >is another way to accomplish enforceability, while avoiding the Board's
> >> >objections to "structural change"? of ICANN itself, that should be
> >> >acceptable. That "other way" is to enter into a contract under which
> >> >ICANN promises to adopt and comply with specified bylaws and to
> >> >establish a binding IRP.
> >> >Because there won't be a binding IRP to enforce a duty to create a
> >> >binding IRP, the registry constituency has already suggested that there
> >> >be a contract that requires ICANN to follow through on that promise.
> >> >This suggestion just applies the same principle to the entire community
> >> >and all of the proposed community powers. It's time for ccwg to start
> >> >drafting contract terms.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >***********************************************
> >> >
> >> >Here's a rough outline of the logistics of how this would work:
> >> >
> >> >Acting by consensus resolution, SOs and ACs would form an
> >> >unincorporated association. This would include writing bylaws regarding
> >> >decision-making process for the UA (action solely at direction of
> >> >consensus of SOs/ACs?) As its first act, the UA would offer ICANN a
> >> >contract with the following terms.
> >> >
> >> >1. ICANN would agree to adopt and abide by a specified set of bylaws
> >> >(which would be attached as an exhibit to the contract) that set forth
> >> >community powers and establishment of binding IRP.
> >> >
> >> >2. The contract would have a term coterminous with ICANN's existence
> >> >and could not be cancelled. (no expiration date and no grounds for
> >> >termination by ICANN)
> >> >
> >> >3. The contract would call for specific performance.
> >> >
> >> >4. Disputes would be resolved by the IRP, and would be binding on ICANN
> >> >(even if ICANN chose not to appear before the panel).
> >> >
> >> >5. In addition to the UA itself, Any two SOs or ACs, acting by internal
> >> >consensus, could bring a case to enforce the provisions, and ICANN
> >> >would pay the costs of such a case.
> >> >
> >> >6. The contract would name as third party beneficiaries any Individual
> >> >SO/AC, sub constituencies and any parties materially harmed by breach
> >> >of the agreement - providing that these third parties could also bring
> >> >a case to enforce the agreement, at their own expense, with costs
> >> >allocated by the IRP).
> >> >
> >> >7. ICANN would promise that, in the event the terms of the contract
> >> >could not be enforced in the absence of a "membership" structure, it
> >> >would recognize the UA as a member under California law.
> >> >
> >> >8. ICANN would warrant that it has the authority to enter into the
> >> >agreement and agree that it will not assert in the future that
> >> >compliance with the contract would be prevented by any claimed conflict
> >> >between the contract and the ability of the Board to exercise its
> >> >fiduciary duties.
> >> >
> >> >9. The UA would agree, in light of these ICANN promises, to support the
> >> >transition (treating ICANN as the steward of the IANA function and as
> >> >the source of policy for dns absent any ability of US Government to
> >> >take that role away).
> >> >
> >> >Obviously, there are still some unresolved details regarding what the
> >> >bylaws would say (e.g., re community oversight of budget). These would
> >> >have to be resolved.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >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 music
> >> >http://tinyurl.com/davidpostmusic publications etc.
> >> >http://www.davidpost.com
> >> >*******************************
> >> >
> >> >*******************************
> >> >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 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
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> >> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
> >>
> >>
> >> ________________________________
> >>
> >> This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the
> >> individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of
> >> this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the
> >> employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or
> >> attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any
> >> dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any
> >> attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
> >> communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to
> >> the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any
> >> attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and
> >> confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the
> >> Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. Â§2510-2521.
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
>
>_______________________________________________
>Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community