[CCWG-ACCT] Board comments now in

[Seun Ojedeji]

Thanks Bruce and Chris for responding to "our" questions/comments. I want
to believe you are responding based on the legal analysis you may have
carried out on the proposal. It is my hope that the CCWG would at least
make an effort to also confirm the legal viability of the proposal as well.

We ofcourse have a choice to reject what has been suggested but not just
without convincing rationale. Perhaps we should remind ourselves that going
member route was never the will of quite a number of people (including some
of those that desires enforcement) and we were only hoping that the
community mechanisms proposed will reduce the negative impact of
membership. If we then have a way to get compliance from board without
membership, I expect we would achieved at lot in keeping ICANN board
accountable while also ensuring stability of the organisation.

I am of the opinion that it will be an act of "irresponsibility (violation
of office rules)" for board to refuse to abide by its bylaw, so I think
ensuring that their operating manual (bylaw) is community inclusive as much
as possible is quite important and I believe the CCWG has done a good job
on that.

I think the Co-Chair and others have hinted rightly; we should look at the
merits in what is suggested and not the person/group. Like I have earlier
said, I am as "angry" as anyone who also think board's suggestion is coming
late but the fact is that we are still in development phase and some have
argued that board intervening early in this process could have been
mis-interpreted to mean top down as it's already claimed presently.

The interest in ICANN would continue to increase; the board and community
are both liable to compromise/capture but I am quite certain that such
compromise may be easier to fix for board than at the highly "dynamic"
community level. In as much as ensuring multi-stakeholder environment is
important, protecting it should also be an important factor.

I wish the CCWG all best at their face 2 face meeting in LA, will try to
follow through remotely as one of the "unfunded" participant ;-)

Regards
Sent from my Asus Zenfone2
Kindly excuse brevity and typos.
On 13 Sep 2015 05:02, "Bruce Tonkin" <Bruce.Tonkin at melbourneit.com.au>
wrote:

> Hello Jordan,
>
>
>
> I am not a lawyer – but will provide my understanding at least.
>
>
>
>
>
> >>  So Bruce - would they have legal standing as individuals? Or as an
> unincorporated association, that is, collectively?
>
>
>
> They would have legal standing as individuals.   The individuals would be
> occupying roles in the bylaws – i.e. chairs of SOs and ACs.   They would
> take action on behalf of the SOs and ACs, and have standing to legally
> enforce.
>
>
>
> In a similar way I have a role on the Board as a voting Board director –
> but I could enforce actions against the organization as an individual.
>
>
>
>
>
> >>  Relatedly - has the board analysed whether the model is viable
> without a membership approach given the obligations directors hold
> (fiduciary obligations) in a non-membership system?
>
>
>
> I don’t understand the question.    From my understanding Directors of a
> board have the same fiduciary obligations regardless of where it is
> membership or non-membership organization.    The arbitration model I think
> could apply to either type of organization as well.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
>
>
> Bruce Tonkin
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> J
>
> On Sunday, 13 September 2015, Bruce Tonkin <
> Bruce.Tonkin at melbourneit.com.au> wrote:
>
> Hello Malcolm,
>
> >>  Binding Enforcement: In California, final decisions may be turned into
> enforceable court judgments. So an arbitration decision issued following an
> MEM proceeding can be enforced in a court in California. "
>
> >>  My first question is "By whom?"
>
> As per FAQ question no. 13, the answer is The MEM Issue Group.
>
> This MEM Issue Group could be comprised of the individual people serving
> as chairs of the participating SOs/ACs. These individuals would have legal
> standing to initiate arbitration and have legal standing to enforce the
> outcome of the arbitration in court.
>
> ICANN will indemnify the MEM Issue Group, and will bear the fees and
> expenses that might be incurred in any lawsuit arising out of the
> enforcement of a MEM final arbitration decision.
>
> There are other options - but this seems to be the simplest.  More
> elaborate options include forming an unincorporated association for the
> purpose of initiating the arbitration and then seeking to enforce in court
> if necessary  (which I hope is never necessary - as any Board that I have
> been on would abide by the arbitration).
>
> I have attached the relevant docs for ease of reference.
>
> Regards,
> Bruce Tonkin
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Jordan Carter
> Chief Executive, InternetNZ
>
> +64-21-442-649 | jordan at internetnz.net.nz
>
> Sent on the run, apologies for brevity
>
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20150913/93cca7b0/attachment.html>