[CCWG-ACCT] PTI Separation Hypothetical

[Kavouss Arasteh]

Anne,
I have addressed that in my subsequent message to Co-Chairs to ask Legal
Consel to suggest a legal provisions to remedy /cover the case on table as
you further clarified.
Let us see whether we can have a reply to that
Regards
Kavouss

2015-10-20 17:04 GMT+02:00 Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman at lrrlaw.com>:

>
> ALSO, Does PTI move to Europe while Community IRP is pending?
>
> Sent from my Verizon 4G LTE Tablet
>
>
> ------ Original message------
>
> *From: *Aikman-Scalese, Anne
>
> *Date: *Tue, Oct 20, 2015 10:58 AM
>
> *To: *Kavouss Arasteh;Christopher Wilkinson;
>
> *Cc: *accountability-cross-community at icann.org;
>
> *Subject:*Re: [CCWG-ACCT] PTI Separation Hypothetical
>
>
> P.s.
>
> Feel free to assume that in accordance with the Human Rights
> then applicable via the new ICANN organizational docs, privacy law in the
> relevant jurisdiction figures heavily in the decision- making on PTI
> separation.
>
>
> Sent from my Verizon 4G LTE Tablet
>
>
> ------ Original message------
>
> *From: *Aikman-Scalese, Anne
>
> *Date: *Tue, Oct 20, 2015 10:46 AM
>
> *To: *Kavouss Arasteh;Christopher Wilkinson;
>
> *Cc: *accountability-cross-community at icann.org;
>
> *Subject:*Re: [CCWG-ACCT] PTI Separation Hypothetical
>
>
> Kavouss,.  This is not an exercise in evaluating who can block.    It is
> an exercise in examining the operation of Board discretion under the Sole
> Designator Model versus giving the Community the final decision if there is
> a Sole Member.  I think we should assume for this purpose that the Board
> has properly exercised its fiduciary duty and in fact that exercise is
> supported by GAC advice.
>
>
> You could also switch the policy advice.  GNSO and Numbers might say don't
> separate  and stay in U.S. and GAC may advise to separate and move to
> Europe and operate as Societe Anonyme.
>
>
> Then Board votes by over 2/3 to move to Europe.  Again, the Board's
>  exercise of its fiduciary duty may be perfectly reasonable.  Does the
> Single Designator remove the Board?  Extremely unlikely in my opinion.
>
>
> I am not advocating for either model right now and in fact have to fly to
> the Middle East tomorrow so will miss the session. I wish you all great
> progress.
>
>
> Congrats on all the giant steps forward this week.  Anne
>
>
> Sent from my Verizon 4G LTE Tablet.
>
>
> ------ Original message------
>
> *From: *Kavouss Arasteh
>
> *Date: *Tue, Oct 20, 2015 7:21 AM
>
> *To: *Christopher Wilkinson;
>
> *Cc: *Aikman-Scalese, Anne;accountability-cross-community at icann.org;
>
> *Subject:*Re: [CCWG-ACCT] PTI Separation Hypothetical
>
>
> Anne,
> No single advice against or single objection against shall not veto the
> separation or any decision taken by consensus for those other participation
> in the process.
> I mentioned that yesterday and Mathieu confirmed that .
>
>
> 2015-10-20 10:39 GMT+02:00 Christopher Wilkinson <
> lists at christopherwilkinson.eu>:
>
>> All Member options will be appraised against the bench mark as to which
>> will most securely guarantee to prevent separation.
>>
>> CW
>>
>>
>> On 20 Oct 2015, at 09:21, "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman at lrrlaw.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Using the PTI separation process, policy recommendation from GNSO and
>> Numbers  is to separate PTI and place in an SA in Paris.  GAC consensus
>> advice to the Board is against separation.  Over 2/3 of Board agrees with
>> the GAC and takes GAC advice.  What happens under each of the two models
>> and on the Staircase?  How do the specifics of the PTI process interact
>> with the Staircase?
>>
>> Anne
>> Sent from my Verizon 4G LTE Tablet
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> 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. §2510-2521.
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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. §2510-2521.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20151020/97d4295d/attachment.html>