[CCWG-ACCT] A few questions to CCWG-Legal team( Was Re: Fwd: [Acct-Legal] Comparison of CCWG CMSM Proposal and ICANN Board MEM Proposal)

Seun Ojedeji seun.ojedeji at gmail.com
Wed Sep 23 19:20:40 UTC 2015


Hello,

I was looking at the memo comparing the CCWG proposal and the board's and
have a few questions/request for clarification

1. Apologies if this should have been clear to me but its not, may i know
the "current status quo" referred to in the statement below?

"Our initial assessment is that the Board Proposal -- due to lack of the
legal rights that can attach to a member and a designator -- is closest to
the current status quo and would deliver the least robust and enforceable
community powers of the three models."

2. Bullet point 3 of "Approve Changes to ICANN “Fundamental” Bylaws
(Section 4.5)" section seem to be quite un-helpful, especially as the
phrase "it appears" was used. Considering that ICANN legal was consulted,
does it mean there still wasn't clarity of information to ensure a definite
response from CCWG legal? bullet point 4 is also not that helpful; is ccwg
saying that board's proposed model does not allow such ability? I think
some definite responses would be helpful.

3. The example sighted in bullet point 3 of "Reconsider/Reject ICANN Budget
or Strategy/Operating Plans (Section 7.1)" prompts me to ask our CCWG legal
to make clear what they believe to be Board's fiduciary duties and where
those duties are defined other than in operating documents like bylaws?

4. Based on bullet point 3 and 4 of "Reconsider/Reject Changes to ICANN
“Standard” Bylaws (and Enforcement) (Section 7.2)" is it "legally" accurate
to conclude that board compliance will be ensured on standard bylaws if the
scope of MEM is further reviewed to extend beyond "fundamental bylaws"?

5. Based on the grounds stated under bullet point 1 of "Appoint and Remove
Individual ICANN Directors (Section 7.3)" Are there any other grounds in
the current CCWG proposal that legal feel is not covered under those 3
items? also based on bullet point 3 is it correct to conclude that the
requirement for enforcement would still be based on courts verdict for both
models? My question on bullet point 1 applies to 5 as well.

6. Based on bullet point 1 of "Recall of Entire Board (Section 7.4)" May i
know if legal thinks the current CCWG proposal had the removal of the ICANN
president included?


Regards


On Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 5:19 AM, Jordan Carter <jordan at internetnz.net.nz>
wrote:

> Hi all - forwarded to get this to you ASAP, not sure who was meant to.
> J
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Gregory, Holly <holly.gregory at sidley.com>
> Date: 23 September 2015 at 14:04
> Subject: [Acct-Legal] Comparison of CCWG CMSM Proposal and ICANN Board MEM
> Proposal
> To: "thomas at rickert.net" <thomas at rickert.net>, "mathieu.weill at afnic.fr" <
> mathieu.weill at afnic.fr>, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe at sanchez.mx>,
> "ccwg-accountability5 at icann.org" <ccwg-accountability5 at icann.org>, Alice
> Jansen <alice.jansen at icann.org>, Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad at icann.org>
> Cc: Sidley ICANN CCWG <sidleyicannccwg at sidley.com>, ICANN-Adler <
> ICANN at adlercolvin.com>
>
>
> Dear Co-Chairs, Members and Participants of CCWG,
>
>
>
> Attached please find three documents to assist in preparation for our
> meeting in L.A.:
>
>
>
> ·         A memo from Sidley and Adler with our high level observations
> regarding comparison between the Board Proposal and the CCWG Proposal.
>
> ·         A Summary Comparison of Key Characteristics of CMSM Model and
> Board Proposal – this or something along these lines will be expanded out
> in the next several days to include the Sole Designator model as requested
> on today’s call
>
> ·         Comparison of CCWG 2nd Draft Proposal (Community Mechanism as
> Sole Member) and ICANN Board Proposal (Comparison)
>
> We look forward to seeing you in L.A.,
>
>
>
> Holly and Rosemary
>
>
>
> *HOLLY* *J. GREGORY*
> Partner and Co-Chair
> Global Corporate Governance & Executive Compensation Practice
>
> *Sidley Austin LLP*
> +1 212 839 5853
> holly.gregory at sidley.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ****************************************************************************************************
> This e-mail is sent by a law firm and may contain information that is
> privileged or confidential.
> If you are not the intended recipient, please delete the e-mail and any
> attachments and notify us
> immediately.
>
>
> ****************************************************************************************************
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ccwg-accountability5 mailing list
> Ccwg-accountability5 at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-accountability5
>
>
>
>
> --
> 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!
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20150923/bfffe8f8/attachment.html>


More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list