[CCWG-ACCT] MEM and enforceability

[Chris Disspain]

Hello David,

I appreciate the constructive criticism 😀.

Are these points not the same as with the IRP in the sole member model? They would need to be addressed in either case wouldn't they?

Cheers,
 
Chris 

> On 22 Sep 2015, at 21:59, McAuley, David <dmcauley at verisign.com> wrote:
> 
> I appreciate the board’s input and take it as a good faith effort to enhance and evolve the CCWG proposal.
> However, I have, with respect, three critiques of it.
>  
> First, the ability to create a remedy if the MEM panel finds against the board is completely within the board’s discretion. Even a slight (even inconsequential) “remedy” would be a remedy and would, effectively, bar any viable avenue to court enforcement.
>  
> Second, (and this applies to any panel ruling) any decision by the board to state that a ruling against it falls into the area of the board’s fiduciary obligations (thus frustrating implementation of the ruling) should itself be appealable to ensure that this is, in fact, an objectively justified conclusion. 
>  
> And, third, if we went down this path, the board’s ability to create a remedy (subject, I would urge, to some test for reasonableness) should be time-limited so that a claimant need not wait and wonder if it can ever appeal to court.  
>  
> David McAuley
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20150922/30aaa67f/attachment.html>