<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=Windows-1252">
</head>
<body dir="auto">
<div>I disagree - the issue is whether or not the community has legal authority to make certain decisions. The only role of a court would be to enforce the decision of a panel of international arbitration experts with respect to a dispute about that authority.
<br>
<br>
Sent from my iPad</div>
<div><br>
On May 21, 2015, at 7:07 AM, Drazek, Keith <<a href="mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com">kdrazek@verisign.com</a>> wrote:<br>
<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div>
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 14 (filtered medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Verdana;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">All,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Like several others, I believe we’re over-complicating things.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">This discussion is about giving the ICANN community
<u>standing</u> to be able to challenge Board decisions in court, as a measure of last resort. Without that standing, the Board is free to ignore or reject the will of the community and the rest of our existing and proposed accountability mechanisms are only
advisory.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Unless a court can order a board to take an action, or stop taking an action, or determine if the board acted improperly, then there is no real accountability
because there is no ultimate power to compel corrective action. The problem right now with ICANN is that no one in the community has standing to go to court. Under a membership model, members will have standing, similar to the standing shareholders have in
a typical public company. Currently, as Ed correctly outlined in his email below, the Attorney General of the State of California has standing, but we the ICANN community do not.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">As such, I don’t understand claims that securing community powers (our goal) through legal enforceability and membership (as mechanisms
to deliver that goal) somehow disenfranchises non-US ICANN participants, or how legal enforceability, in the words of auDA, “</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">would also serve to further concentrate power
in the United States.” A membership structure that gives the ICANN community standing and legal recourse in ICANN’s current jurisdiction would actually enhance and expand the role of the global multi-stakeholder community, not diminish it from today’s status
quo. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">I find suggestions that membership and legal recourse are somehow threatening to non-US residents to be misguided or misplaced.
As established in its current bylaws and articles of incorporation, ICANN is headquartered in California and is already subject to California law. Why shouldn’t the community have standing under ICANN’s existing jurisdiction to challenge Board decisions, as
a measure of last resort? If I’m missing something, I’m happy to be educated further, but I don’t see those US-centric claims as having any factual basis.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Regards,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Keith<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"">
<a href="mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org">accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org</a> [<a href="mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org">mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org</a>]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Edward Morris<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Thursday, May 21, 2015 5:50 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> Chris Disspain<br>
<b>Cc:</b> Accountability Cross Community<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Question regarding UAs<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Hi Chris,<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<blockquote style="border:none;border-left:solid #CCCCCC 1.0pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-right:0in">
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";color:#666666"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";color:#666666">I am against handing that ultimate authority to a Californian court. I am against that for many reasons not the least of which is that, as a lawyer, I am extremely
aware of just how unpredictable and dangerous courts can be. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";color:#666666"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";color:#666666"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">I understand your concern and believe it is a valid one. However, I feel compelled to point out that since it's inception the ultimate authority over ICANN has, in fact, been the State of California and it's executive, legislative and judicial
systems. Per California Corporations Code §5250:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">A corporation is subject at all times to examination by the<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Attorney General, on behalf of the state, to ascertain the condition<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">of its affairs and to what extent, if at all, it fails to comply with<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">trusts which it has assumed or has departed from the purposes for<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">which it is formed. In case of any such failure or departure the<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Attorney General may institute, in the name of the state, the<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">proceeding necessary to correct the noncompliance or departure.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">I do acknowledge that under the CCWG proposal there may be a greater chance of legal action as the scope of potential litigation is increased. However under the escalated scenario you have kindly provided the issue at hand would likely
be so fundamental that it would already have precipitated a call for action by the California Attorney General under Corporations Code §5250. I would suggest that under the proposed accountability reforms there would be a better chance of compromise, due to
the forces in play, prior to litigation than is now the case. In any fundamental dispute, today or in the proposed future, the courts of the State of California would/are the ultimate 'decider', subject to overrule on certain issues by the federal judiciary.
I'd suggest that the proposed structure where, if litigation on fundamental matters is necessary, the instigator would / could be the community rather than the California AG, as is now the case, is a better one. Of course, given the provisional remedies
under consideration it would be hoped that affairs would never bubble up to this level of acrimonious discongruence. <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Thanks for raising the issue. Accountability has many moving parts and it's good we're having this discussion.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Best,<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Edward Morris<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div><span>_______________________________________________</span><br>
<span>Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list</span><br>
<span><a href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a></span><br>
<span><a href="https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=AwICAg&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=aot7hCPGzknOFc-9o9xq3fbEJBpHK7CjhzGdzqc4shc&s=y8FxLWA89OgfY-a3JflAmZ8_jbVAhi5KUhIe_YG1ypE&e=">https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=AwICAg&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=aot7hCPGzknOFc-9o9xq3fbEJBpHK7CjhzGdzqc4shc&s=y8FxLWA89OgfY-a3JflAmZ8_jbVAhi5KUhIe_YG1ypE&e=</a>
</span><br>
</div>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>