[CCWG-ACCT] Fwd: [Acct-Legal] Comparison of CCWG CMSM Proposal and ICANN Board MEM Proposal

Kavouss Arasteh kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com
Thu Sep 24 15:51:21 UTC 2015


Jorg
Thank you are right in that regard
Kavousd

Sent from my iPhone

> On 23 Sep 2015, at 06:00, Gregory, Holly <holly.gregory at sidley.com> 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
>  
> 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>; jordan at internetnz.net.nz; 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
>  
> From: accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch
> Sent: Wednesday, September 23, 2015 4:39 AM
> To: jordan at internetnz.net.nz; 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] Im Auftrag von Jordan Carter
> Gesendet: Mittwoch, 23. September 2015 06:20
> An: Accountability Cross Community <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>
> 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20150924/9344b9b4/attachment.html>


More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list