[CCWG-ACCT] Fwd: [Acct-Legal] Comparison of CCWG CMSM Proposal and ICANN Board MEM Proposal
Malcolm Hutty
malcolm at linx.net
Thu Sep 24 08:31:26 UTC 2015
First, a big "thank you" to our counsel for another valuable piece of work.
There is just one thing I would like to add. In all our discussions of
the enforceability question, there is a continuing focus on the
enforcement of the *outcome* of arbitration procedures. I believe we
also need to pay attention to the enforcement of the *availability* of
those procedures.
In our proposed reforms, the main accountability tool is the arbitration
of disputes through the IRP. What would happen if ICANN refused to
submit to binding arbitration through the IRP in a particular case?
-> Under the CCWG proposal, the Sole Member could enforce the
availability of the IRP, by bringing a derivative action to obtain a
court order to instruct ICANN to enter the IRP.
-> Under the Board proposal, the Sole Member would not be available. It
appears that in these circumstances the SOACs could initiate the MEM.
This just iterates the same question to another level.
The Board proposal raises a new form of arbitration, the MEM. This begs
the question, *what would recourse would be available if ICANN refuses
to enter into binding arbitration with an MEM issue group?*
There are various pretexts it might offer for such a refusal. For
example, it could deny that an MEM Issue Group had been validly formed.
Or it could assert that the dispute fell outside the narrow parameters
of matters that may be considered by the MEM.
For example, consider the following scenario:
Step 1: Someone tries to initiate an IRP
Step 2: ICANN refuses to enter an IRP. ICANN asserts that the Board has
acted as required by its fiduciary duty, so an IRP is moot.
Step 3: An MEM Issue Group is formed to challenge ICANN's refusal to
enter into the IRP as promised by a Fundamental Bylaw.
Step 4: The MEM Issue Group considers that ICANN's refusal is
inconsistent with the IRP Fundamental Bylaw. It decides to invoke the
MEM Standing Panel to arbitrate.
Step 5: ICANN refuses to submit to binding arbitration before the MEM
Standing Panel. It asserts that the MEM Issue Group's position boils
down to disagreeing with how the Board saw its fiduciary duty, which it
says lies outside the scope of the MEM. Accordingly, ICANN refuses to
appear before the MEM Standing Panel.
What recourse would be available in such circumstances, and to whom
would it be available?
If there be no recourse in such a situation, as it appears to me, then
this would be a significant accountability gap.
I would ask that our lawyers address in any future review the question
of the enforcement of the *availability* of arbitration as well as the
enforcement of the *outcome* of arbitration.
I am sorry that I will not be able to come to Los Angeles on this
occasion due to pre-existing commitments, but I wish all participants well.
Kind Regards,
Malcolm.
On 23/09/2015 14:00, Gregory, Holly wrote:
> Thank you for that feedback, Jorge. We will consider whether to issue a
> revised draft clarifying the point.
>
>
>
> *HOLLY* *GREGORY*
> Partner
>
> *Sidley Austin LLP**
> *+1 212 839 5853
> holly.gregory at sidley.com <mailto:holly.gregory at sidley.com>
>
>
>
> *From:*Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch [mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, September 23, 2015 8:56 AM
> *To:* Gregory, Holly; jordan at internetnz.net.nz;
> accountability-cross-community at icann.org
> *Subject:* AW: [CCWG-ACCT] Fwd: [Acct-Legal] Comparison of CCWG CMSM
> Proposal and ICANN Board MEM Proposal
>
>
>
> Thanks for the prompt reply – however I feel that your Memo is a bit too
> “absolute” in its wording as regards to the exclusion of this specific
> power from the MEM (p.4: “As noted below, the MEM process would not be
> available to challenge a failure by the Board to follow this
> procedure.”), while the Board Matrix is apparently clear in stating that
> Board actions not complying would fall into the MEM (p. 61 Matrix: “/In
> the event the Board fails to abide by these processes, or the community
> believes that the Board has taken a decision in these areas that is
> inconsistent with the Mission and Core Values, //the MEM will provide
> binding arbitration over that issue//. In addition, the community will
> have the ability to remove individual Board Directors or recall the
> Board/.”)…
>
>
>
> Jorge
>
>
>
> *Von:*Gregory, Holly [mailto:holly.gregory at sidley.com]
> *Gesendet:* Mittwoch, 23. September 2015 14:29
> *An:* Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch
> <mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch>>; jordan at internetnz.net.nz
> <mailto:jordan at internetnz.net.nz>;
> accountability-cross-community at icann.org
> <mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org>
> *Betreff:* RE: [CCWG-ACCT] Fwd: [Acct-Legal] Comparison of CCWG CMSM
> Proposal and ICANN Board MEM Proposal
>
>
>
> Thank you for your questions Jorge. Let me try to quickly respond in
> the interest of resolving the apparent confusion.
>
>
>
> In the Frequently Asked Questions provided by the Board regarding
> community enforceability, see the answer to Q3.
>
>
>
> The point is that outside of a member context there are limits on what
> powers can be given to the community in a manner that would be
> enforceable. That is why we wrote:
>
>
>
> As a legal matter, there is a level of uncertainty arising to doubt that
> Bylaw provisions providing these rights (Budget veto etc) to the
> community as represented by the SOs and ACs would be legally cognizable,
> let alone enforceable, outside of a member context.
>
>
>
> We provided Jones Day and ICANN Legal the long chart yesterday morning
> for comments. And we greatly appreciate that they provided comments in
> a short period of time, which we reviewed and incorporated based on our
> judgment. Jones Day and ICANN Legal were not provided the opportunity
> to review the memo due to our time constraints but we of course welcome
> and would value their comments.
>
>
>
> Kind regards, Holly
>
> *HOLLY* *GREGORY*
> Partner
>
> *Sidley Austin LLP**
> *+1 212 839 5853
> holly.gregory at sidley.com <mailto:holly.gregory at sidley.com>
>
>
>
> *From:*accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org
> <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org>
> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org] *On Behalf Of
> *Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch>
> *Sent:* Wednesday, September 23, 2015 4:39 AM
> *To:* jordan at internetnz.net.nz <mailto:jordan at internetnz.net.nz>;
> accountability-cross-community at icann.org
> <mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Fwd: [Acct-Legal] Comparison of CCWG CMSM
> Proposal and ICANN Board MEM Proposal
>
>
>
> Thanks Jordan, for forwarding these valuable inputs.
>
>
>
> I’m going through the Memos and I just stumbled on an issue where I’m
> not sure whether the Memo reflects or not the Board proposal. On page 4
> of the “Memorandum” it is said that the community power on budget,
> strategic and operating plan is “not subject to binding arbitration
> under the Board proposal” – but on page 61 of the Board Matrix it is
> affirmed that “/In the event the Board fails to abide by these
> processes, or the community believes that the Board has taken a decision
> in these areas that is inconsistent with the Mission and Core Values,
> //the MEM will provide binding arbitration over that issue//. In
> addition, the community will have the ability to remove individual Board
> Directors or recall the Board/.”
>
>
>
> Am I missing something?
>
>
>
> And, this leads me to a more general question: at the beginning of the
> Memo it is stated that Jones Day was consulted in order to avoid
> misunderstandings – did they reply and confirm that there were none?
>
>
>
> Thanks and regards
>
>
>
> Jorge
>
>
>
> *Von:*accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org
> <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org>
> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org] *Im Auftrag
> von *Jordan Carter
> *Gesendet:* Mittwoch, 23. September 2015 06:20
> *An:* Accountability Cross Community
> <accountability-cross-community at icann.org
> <mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org>>
> *Betreff:* [CCWG-ACCT] Fwd: [Acct-Legal] Comparison of CCWG CMSM
> Proposal and ICANN Board MEM Proposal
>
>
>
> 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
> <mailto: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 <mailto:thomas at rickert.net>" <thomas at rickert.net
> <mailto:thomas at rickert.net>>, "mathieu.weill at afnic.fr
> <mailto:mathieu.weill at afnic.fr>" <mathieu.weill at afnic.fr
> <mailto:mathieu.weill at afnic.fr>>, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía
> <leonfelipe at sanchez.mx <mailto:leonfelipe at sanchez.mx>>,
> "ccwg-accountability5 at icann.org <mailto:ccwg-accountability5 at icann.org>"
> <ccwg-accountability5 at icann.org
> <mailto:ccwg-accountability5 at icann.org>>, Alice Jansen
> <alice.jansen at icann.org <mailto:alice.jansen at icann.org>>, Grace Abuhamad
> <grace.abuhamad at icann.org <mailto:grace.abuhamad at icann.org>>
> Cc: Sidley ICANN CCWG <sidleyicannccwg at sidley.com
> <mailto:sidleyicannccwg at sidley.com>>, ICANN-Adler <ICANN at adlercolvin.com
> <mailto: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 2^nd 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 <tel:%2B1%20212%20839%205853>
> holly.gregory at sidley.com <mailto: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 <mailto:Ccwg-accountability5 at icann.org>
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-accountability5
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_ccwg-2Daccountability5&d=BQMGaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=1-1w8mU_eFprE2Nn9QnYf01XIV88MOwkXwHYEbF2Y_8&m=lWkPxTSoa5ayA0nk7iZO5qPxgajnB8c1XdKQl0aDvFk&s=gwcHAJ8RHuPV3uacnzBx2jv9ceztzdQrVW6rarXmx_E&e=>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Jordan Carter
>
> Chief Executive
> *InternetNZ*
>
>
> +64-4-495-2118 (office) | +64-21-442-649 (mob)
> Email: jordan at internetnz.net.nz <mailto:jordan at internetnz.net.nz>
> Skype: jordancarter
>
> Web: www.internetnz.nz
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.internetnz.nz&d=BQMGaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=1-1w8mU_eFprE2Nn9QnYf01XIV88MOwkXwHYEbF2Y_8&m=lWkPxTSoa5ayA0nk7iZO5qPxgajnB8c1XdKQl0aDvFk&s=H78gy9fUnDZjSRP-wKqyDxXpoiBY4U9sKKGe-CIMT2o&e=>
>
>
> /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
>
--
Malcolm Hutty | tel: +44 20 7645 3523
Head of Public Affairs | Read the LINX Public Affairs blog
London Internet Exchange | http://publicaffairs.linx.net/
London Internet Exchange Ltd
21-27 St Thomas Street, London SE1 9RY
Company Registered in England No. 3137929
Trinity Court, Trinity Street, Peterborough PE1 1DA
More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community
mailing list