[CCWG-ACCT] Summary words from engagement meeting

Jordan Carter jordan at internetnz.net.nz
Sat Oct 17 11:00:04 UTC 2015


Here are my notes as outlined at the meeting, for the record:

1. We focused on IRP, because PTI would end up in an IRP.



2. IRP enforcement process is the same regardless of the model. If after
arbitration award is granted, losing party objects, prevailing party must
go to court for enforcement of arbitration award



3. In both models there is a legal person - the sole designator or member -
that can be party to IRP if required.



4. In either model, fiduciary duties are important and have the effect of
limiting the scope of what can be arbitrated in an IRP setting.



5.  In the member model the board is limited in asserting that its action
was protected as a fiduciary business judgment as to community powers
reserved to the sole member. (That is, the scope of issues properly subject
to arbitration is therefore broader in member model.)



6. Preferences were split among those present between the two models.



7. My personal preference on this dimension angles slightly towards the
member model, because it provides for stronger enforceability of the
community powers through the IRP or generally - that is, as said, it does
that by removing the possibility of ICANN arguing that enforcement of those
powers conflicts with fiduciary duties and so cannot be arbitrated.

-- 
Jordan Carter

Chief Executive
*InternetNZ*

+64-4-495-2118 (office) | +64-21-442-649 (mob)
Email: jordan at internetnz.net.nz
Skype: jordancarter
Web: www.internetnz.nz

*A better world through a better Internet *
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20151017/33d9415e/attachment.html>


More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list