[CCWG-ACCT] Summary words from engagement meeting

[Jordan Carter]

I have some sympathy with that, but in the end only the SD or SM model, or
some other model involving membership or designators, provide
enforceability of that backstop power.

Jordan


On 17 October 2015 at 15:56, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sat, Oct 17, 2015 at 2:25 PM, Jordan Carter <jordan at internetnz.net.nz>
> wrote:
>
>> Thanks Desiree - copying to list for the record and to share your
>> thoughts.
>> J
>>
>> On 17 October 2015 at 12:19, Desiree Miloshevic <dmiloshevic at afilias.info
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> Jordan
>>>
>>> Myself, like Malcolm has said, have come out of our Enforcement model
>>> breakout session thinking that in the end there is not a huge advantage of
>>> the Sole Membership model
>>> over the Single Designator Model.
>>>
>>> However, we should explore other opportunities. For example we have not
>>> discussed enough the indirect Enforcement - the spill of the board
>>> as that may end up being a faster and more efficient way than court
>>> proceedings, that would, in the end, keep deciding if something is
>>> a fiduciary duty or not regardless of potentially reserved membership
>>> statutory powers and regardless of what the board suggests.
>>>
>>
> So: Just for the record, I like to add my +1 to what Desiree has said
> above. As one of those who participated in the enforcement subgroup its one
> of my take away from that discussion. Its also the reason i asked why we
> decided to restrict ourselves to discussing SD and SM only. The Co-Chairs
> said they were going to respond to that later, I hope the response can be
> shared as soon as they can.
>
> Regards
>
>
>
>>
>>> Desiree
>>> --
>>>
>>> On 17 Oct 2015, at 12:00, Jordan Carter <jordan at internetnz.net.nz>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> 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 *
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>>> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> 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 *
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
>
>
> *Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb:
> http://www.fuoye.edu.ng <http://www.fuoye.edu.ng> Mobile: +2348035233535**alt
> email: <http://goog_1872880453>seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng
> <seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng>*
>
> Bringing another down does not take you up - think about your action!
>
>
>


-- 
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/20151017/9140bdaf/attachment.html>