[CCWG-ACCT] Nomenclature re "Empowered Community": ICANN Board comments - Recommendation 3 - Fundamental Bylaws

Wed Jan 27 13:57:41 UTC 2016

Dear Holly
Dear  Rosemary
Thank you very much for definition
However, the problem that was raised was not the definition but the scope
of responsibility and mandate
There were three options
View one; From Bruce
View Two  FromGrec
View three;From Jordan
Please kindly carefully study these three and comment in favour of one or
other or a combination of those three.
The three designator came first from you in APRIL 2015
tHE eMPOWERED cOMMUNITY CASE FROM THE ccwg discussion.
I agree that the latter is more appropriate but the problem raised was
different as described above.
Either you wish to reply or not but please kindly reply to the question
raised
Regards
Kavouss

2016-01-27 6:53 GMT+01:00 Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com>:

> Thanks a lot Rosemary that answers my question perfectly.
>
> Regards
> On 27 Jan 2016 6:47 a.m., "Rosemary E. Fei" <rfei at adlercolvin.com> wrote:
>
>> Dear Sean and all:
>>
>>
>>
>> You are correct.  The power to designate (and correspondingly to remove)
>> directors is one of the powers that will be given to the Empowered
>> Community in the Bylaws.  You could also say that acting as ICANN’s “sole
>> designator” is one of the Empowered Community’s roles in the proposed
>> accountability structure, along with other roles and powers that will also
>> be given to the Empowered Community in the Bylaws.
>>
>>
>>
>> The Empowered Community could be given the other powers (except the
>> removal right) without giving it the power to designate directors – those
>> other powers can legally be given to any third party, not just one that
>> holds designator powers.
>>
>>
>>
>> I hope that answers your question.
>>
>>
>>
>> Rosemary
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Seun Ojedeji [mailto:seun.ojedeji at gmail.com]
>> *Sent:* Tuesday, January 26, 2016 9:41 PM
>> *To:* Holly Gregory
>> *Cc:* Thomas Rickert; ACCT-Staff; ICANN-Adler; Sidley ICANN CCWG;
>> accountability-cross-community at icann.org; León Felipe Sánchez Ambía;
>> Mathieu Weill
>> *Subject:* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Nomenclature re "Empowered Community": ICANN
>> Board comments - Recommendation 3 - Fundamental Bylaws
>>
>>
>>
>> Thank you Holly for the clarification. This has been my understanding as
>> well.
>>
>> One other thing that I would appreciate if clarified is to know whether
>> the "empowered community" is able to carry out the other roles (like
>> approval of bylaws et all) because it is the designator or just because it
>> is the unincorporated entity setup as the third party to perform those
>> roles in the bylaw.
>>
>> In other words the unincorporated entity doubles as both the designator
>> (with the power as described under California law) and the "enhanced
>> community" (with the other powers as described in the bylaw).
>>
>> Regards
>>
>> On 26 Jan 2016 9:38 p.m., "Gregory, Holly" <holly.gregory at sidley.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Dear CCWG-ACCT Co-Chairs, Members, Participants and Staff,
>>
>>
>>
>> We have been monitoring the recent discussion on the CCWG-ACCT listserv
>> about the use of the terms “community”, “Empowered Community”, and “Sole
>> Designator” in the draft Proposal, and we wish to share our understanding
>> of these terms.
>>
>>
>>
>> We agree that the word “community” as used in the draft
>> Proposal encompasses not only ICANN’s Board and all of its SOs and ACs and
>> their individual members, but also those who participate in ICANN meetings
>> and processes, as explained by Bruce Tonkin in his January 24 email.
>>
>>
>>
>> “Empowered Community” is the name to be given to an unincorporated
>> association to be created in ICANN’s Bylaws.  This new entity has also been
>> described as the “Sole Designator,” but that term -- which arose from the
>> new entity’s function as ICANN’s sole designator -- does not adequately
>> describe the other important roles for the new entity, which extend well
>> beyond the rights given to designators by California corporate law.
>> Therefore,  the “Empowered Community” is a more appropriate reference, and
>> it has been used interchangeably with “Sole Designator” to date.
>>
>>
>>
>> As a global final edit, we recommend using “Empowered Community”
>> consistently to refer to the new legal entity, after the first discussion
>> of the sole designator concept.
>>
>>
>>
>> Kind regards,
>>
>> Hlly and Rosemary
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *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 *Greg
>> Shatan
>> *Sent:* Monday, January 25, 2016 11:42 PM
>> *To:* Jordan Carter
>> *Cc:* accountability-cross-community at icann.org
>> *Subject:* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] ICANN Board comments - Recommendation 3 -
>> Fundamental Bylaws
>>
>>
>>
>> Recommendation 1 states:
>>
>>
>>
>> . The entity created using the Sole Designator model will be referred to
>> as the “Empowered Community.”
>>
>> (Summary, Page 1, bullet point 3).
>>
>>
>>
>> In other words the Sole Designator is the Empowered Community, and vice
>> versa.  You are introducing a dichotomy where none exists.
>>
>>
>>
>> Greg
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 5:39 PM, Jordan Carter <jordan at internetnz.net.nz>
>> wrote:
>>
>> This isn't quite right - as far as I am aware the entity that is the Sole
>> Designator will have the right to appoint and remove directors, and be the
>> 'third party' that can approve changes to Icann fundamental bylaws or block
>> changes to Icann standard bylaws.
>>
>>
>>
>> I'm not sure this is a revelation of any sort, or causes any confusion at
>> all. These powers along with all the others will be set out in the bylaws,
>> as has been the case all along. The only distinguishing feature is that the
>> legislation in California gives designators the director rights, and gives
>> the right of the articles / bylaws to include third party approvals.
>>
>>
>>
>> Even if people are confused about this, there is no problem in substance
>> to resolve.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Cheers
>>
>> Jordan
>>
>>
>>
>> On Monday, 25 January 2016, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Greg,
>>
>> I don't think we are in disagreement in the substance of all these. It's
>> just the naming we are in disagreement upon and I am still of the opinion
>> that a designator only has the statutory power to remove/add board members.
>>
>> All other powers/process we have managed to put in the bylaw may need to
>> be called/named something else as they are not made possible because of the
>> designator but rather because of the fact that they are now written in the
>> bylaw and the board normally would want to respect such a document.
>>
>> In anycase, unless there is any other change you think has been proposed
>> other than giving inspection rights to the community (which you and I are
>> in agreement) that affects the current proposal,  I don't see any reason to
>> still consider this open as such.
>>
>> Regards
>>
>> On 24 Jan 2016 18:02, "Greg Shatan" <gregshatanipc at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Seun,
>>
>>
>>
>> You misunderstand me.  The Designator does more than "enforce" powers.
>> Under our proposal, the designator is also the vehicle for *exercising* a
>> number of the powers (e.g., approving/rejecting bylaws).  The exercise of
>> the new powers by the designator will be a much more common occurrence than
>> the enforcement of those powers by removing directors.  I anticipate the
>> latter will rarely (if ever) occur, though the fact it can occur is part of
>> our accountability framework.  There are other reasons for the Board to
>> comply with the community's exercise of its powers, aside from sheer terror
>> at being removed.  For one thing, these powers are enshrined in the bylaws,
>> and the Board (like any Board) will not take the prospect of violating our
>> Bylaws lightly.
>>
>>
>>
>> We have had a tendency to overemphasize the enforcement end of things,
>> and I think this is one more action in that vein.  Let's try to avoid
>> that.  Just like our proposal is about far more than "enforcement," so is
>> the Single Designator.
>>
>>
>>
>> So, no, your statement did not "close this particular item."  Rather, it
>> demonstrates exactly why this item is not really closed.
>>
>>
>>
>> Greg
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Jan 24, 2016 at 10:48 AM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> On 24 Jan 2016 16:15, "Greg Shatan" <gregshatanipc at gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > I agree with the result the Board came to (at least in part), but not
>> the reasoning.  Each SO or AC should have the right to inspect.  However,
>> the role of the Designator is not merely to "add or remove Board members."
>> The Designator plays a critical role in the exercise of several of the
>> powers, in addition to its role in enforcing those powers via director
>> removal.
>> >
>> SO: I guess Bruce was rightly mentioning the powers of the designator. I
>> believe we we will only be getting those powers enforced as a result of the
>> "add/remove" power of the designator.
>>
>> So in summary we don't get enforcement of the various powers because it's
>> a role of the designator but on the basis that the designator may use its
>> only statutory power, which is to add/remove board members.
>>
>> I generally agree with the result and would have even preferred that a
>> threshold be required for inspection. However, on the basis that each SO/AC
>> may need access to certain information to make informed/independent
>> decisions, it makes sense to allow such right to each SO/AC.
>>
>> Hopefully this close this particular item.
>>
>> Regards
>>
>>   on Recommendation 1.
>> >>
>> >> Just to provide a little more context in response to questions on the
>> list.
>> >>
>> >> The role of the designator is to add or remove Board directors.   This
>> role is enforceable under California law.
>> >>
>> >> The inspection right is a right for the ACs and SOs.   An AC or SO can
>> exercise this right independently of the legal entity that will be the sole
>> designator.     If ICANN doesn't respond to an appropriate request from an
>> SO or AC, it would be in breach of its bylaws.   The community can then use
>> the IRP to get a binding decision.    In the unlikely event that the Board
>> does not comply with the outcome of the IRP decision, then the designator
>> has the power to remove Board members.
>> >>
>> >> In the bylaws we want to make sure that we don't confuse the role of
>> the designator (add or remove Board members) with the various roles of the
>> SO and ACs in the bylaws.   The bylaws are primarily enforced by the IRP,
>> and then the designator (via removal of Board directors) if the IRP is not
>> complied with, and then the courts if the decision of the designator is not
>> complied with.   This is a clear escalation path that applies to all bylaws.
>> >>
>> >> Regards,
>> >> Bruce Tonkin
>> >>
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>> >> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>> >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=1-1w8mU_eFprE2Nn9QnYf01XIV88MOwkXwHYEbF2Y_8&m=du2OD2nYZAU6l2XqEbv_LKsFVqwjXyksiXMKhZ3VDQk&s=v4A3ZwzM9FERJEYcFy5L5NNJvUY3v00O8niOIrVLuSg&e=>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>> > Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>> > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=1-1w8mU_eFprE2Nn9QnYf01XIV88MOwkXwHYEbF2Y_8&m=du2OD2nYZAU6l2XqEbv_LKsFVqwjXyksiXMKhZ3VDQk&s=v4A3ZwzM9FERJEYcFy5L5NNJvUY3v00O8niOIrVLuSg&e=>
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Jordan Carter
>> Chief Executive, InternetNZ
>>
>> +64-21-442-649 | jordan at internetnz.net.nz
>>
>> Sent on the run, apologies for brevity
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ****************************************************************************************************
>> 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.
>>
>>
>> ****************************************************************************************************
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20160127/60e698fd/attachment-0001.html>