Holly,<div><br></div><div>It appears that Izumi has withdrawn that text in favor of the text proposed by Robin, which appears in the proposed agenda and in the email from Robin that I forwarded to this list. I would suggest you review and respond to Robin's text instead (and I note that Robin's email has some other related proposed changes as well, which I think you should at least look over).</div><div><br></div><div>However, I think it would also be important to clarify two points underlying Izumi's text:</div><div><br></div><div>Whether the current system for selecting Board members is a designator system as defined by the California code.</div><div><br></div><div>Whether a designator system will work with the SO/ACs in their current state.</div><div><br></div><div>Thanks!</div><div><br></div><div>Greg<br><br>On Wednesday, April 29, 2015, List for the work of CCWG-Accountability Legal SubTeam <<a href="mailto:ccwg-accountability5@icann.org">ccwg-accountability5@icann.org</a>> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div>
<p>Greg, we agree with your concerns regarding the language highlighted. Please let us know if you would like us to mark up the suggested text. Holly
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Sent with Good (<a href="http://www.good.com" target="_blank">www.good.com</a>)<br>
<strong></strong></p>
<div><font face="Tahoma" color="#000000" size="2"> </font></div>
<hr>
<font face="Tahoma" size="2"><b>From:</b> <a href="javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','ccwg-accountability5-bounces@icann.org');" target="_blank">ccwg-accountability5-bounces@icann.org</a> on behalf of List for the work of CCWG-Accountability Legal SubTeam<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Wednesday, April 29, 2015 12:14:09 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> Izumi Okutani; <a href="javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','ccwg-accountability5@icann.org');" target="_blank">ccwg-accountability5@icann.org</a><br>
<b>Cc:</b> Accountability Cross Community<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [Acct-Legal] [CCWG-ACCT] Suggested text for designaor model<br>
</font><br>
<div></div>
<div>
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">I am forwarding this email into the Legal Subteam for discussion and possible referral to counsel.</div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">In the "suggested text," which I've pasted in below, I believe the text that I have highlighted and bolded is contrary to the advice we have received from Sidley/Adler and in some cases may inadvertently
misstate that advice. Rather than pick it apart here, I think it makes more sense to discuss this with Sidley/Adler and then bring it back to the full list or the next full meeting if need be.</div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">Greg</div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:12.8000001907349px">SUGGESTED TEXT</span><br style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:12.8000001907349px">
<br style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:12.8000001907349px">
<span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:12.8000001907349px">f) Designators are a construct in California law that can achieve some of the powers proposed below -
<b style="background-color:rgb(255,255,0)">As ICANN's SOs/ACs struture is consistent with this model,</b> "the selection and removal of Board members" and "the </span><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:12.8000001907349px">approval or blocking
of changes to bylaws" can be achieved by changing the ByLaws to define the role of SOs/ACs as designators,<b><font color="#000000" style="background-color:rgb(255,255,0)"> without the need to organise unincorporated association.</font><font color="#ffff00">
</font></b>But they cannot reliably deliver other aspects of the set of powers the CCWG believes the community needs,
<span style="background-color:rgb(255,255,0)"><b>such as statutory power for full board dismissal</b></span> and ability to have legal standing in court for enforcement of rights, if it is to fully hold ICANN to account.</span><br style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:12.8000001907349px">
<span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:12.8000001907349px">Crucially, in the view of our counsel,
<b style="background-color:rgb(255,255,0)">to have dismissal of the entire board and for legal enforcement of rights in court,
</b><b style="background-color:rgb(255,255,0)">would require some additional contractual relationships between SOs/ACs and ICANN, which would also oblige SOs and ACs to establish themselves into unincorporated associations,</b> so some of the perceived simplicity
compared with the membership model isn't actually achievable.</span><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br>
</div>
</div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 4:13 PM, Izumi Okutani <span dir="ltr">
<<a href="javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','izumi@nic.ad.jp');" target="_blank">izumi@nic.ad.jp</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
Dear all,<br>
<br>
<br>
As mentioned at the # 30 CCWG call, I'd like to suggest text changes for 6.6.1.1 f).<br>
<br>
<br>
6.6.1.1 The Community Mechanism: Reference<br>
Mechanism<br>
<br>
CURRENT TEXT<br>
Designators are a construct in California law that can achieve some of the powers proposed below ‐<br>
mainly those regarding the selection and removal of Board members and the approval or blocking of<br>
changes to bylaws. But they cannot reliably deliver other aspects of the set of powers the CCWG<br>
believes the community needs, if it is to fully hold ICANN to account. Crucially, in the view of our<br>
counsel, this would also oblige the SOs and ACs to organise themselves into unincorporated<br>
associations ‐ and so some perceived simplicity compared with the membership model isn’t actually<br>
possible.<br>
<br>
SUGGESTED TEXT<br>
<br>
f) Designators are a construct in California law that can achieve some of the powers proposed below - As ICANN's SOs/ACs struture is consistent with this model, "the selection and removal of Board members" and "the<br>
approval or blocking of changes to bylaws" can be achieved by changing the ByLaws to define the role of SOs/ACs as designators, without the need to organise unincorporated association. But they cannot reliably deliver other aspects of the set of powers the
CCWG believes the community needs, such as statutory power for full board dismissal and ability to have legal standing in court for enforcement of rights, if it is to fully hold ICANN to account.<br>
Crucially, in the view of our counsel, to have dismissal of the entire board and for legal enforcement of rights in court, would require some additional contractual relationships between SOs/ACs and ICANN, which would also oblige SOs and ACs to establish themselves
into unincorporated associations, so some of the perceived simplicity compared with the membership model isn't actually achievable.<br>
<br>
<br>
Izumi<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list<br>
<a href="javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org');" target="_blank">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a><br>
<a href="https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=AwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=1-1w8mU_eFprE2Nn9QnYf01XIV88MOwkXwHYEbF2Y_8&m=NR0PsiETMMHqEGWsEqsM3TUsDna9ar0VbKWCOQ7FQW8&s=p6H8i0OOhnuZDyDBKgA60-XF101UdXEKqdEXq__wOgc&e=" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a><br>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</div>
</div>
<p></p>
<p> </p>
<p>****************************************************************************************************<br>
This e-mail is sent by a law firm and may contain information that is privileged or confidential.<br>
If you are not the intended recipient, please delete the e-mail and any attachments and notify us<br>
immediately.<br>
<br>
****************************************************************************************************</p>
</div>
</blockquote></div>