<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=utf-8"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;" class=""><span style="font-family: 'Verdana'; font-size: 13px; color: rgb(102, 102, 102);">Hi Edward,<div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div dir="ltr" class=""><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><div class="">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:</div></div></div></div></blockquote><div class=""><br class=""></div>Correct. These are the powers of the AG which the CCWG has felt are insufficient.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div dir="ltr" class=""><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><div class="">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. </div></div></div></div></blockquote><div class=""><br class=""></div>This is a key part of auDA's concerns.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div dir="ltr" class=""><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><div class="">Of course, given the provisional remedies under consideration it would be hoped that affairs would never bubble up to this level of acrimonious discongruence. </div></div></div></div></blockquote><br class=""></div><div class=""><span style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 15px;" class="">I agree that, under the proposed accountability reforms, there would be a greater chance of “compromise” prior to litigation. That is precisely why we are supporting the reforms. We not only “hope” that “affairs would never bubble up to this level of acrimonious discongruence” but believe that improved accountability and escalation mechanisms provide sufficient assurance that they never would.</span></div><div class=""><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><br class=""><div apple-content-edited="true" class="">
<style type="text/css" class="">
p.p1 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px}
p.p2 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 13.0px Verdana; color: #424242}
p.p3 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 13.0px Verdana; color: #424242; min-height: 16.0px}
p.p4 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 13.0px Verdana; color: #103ffb}
p.p5 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 9.0px Verdana; color: #ffa827; min-height: 11.0px}
p.p6 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 10.0px Verdana; color: #424242}
span.s1 {color: #000000}
span.s2 {color: #ff9324}
span.s3 {text-decoration: underline}
span.s4 {color: #424242}
span.s5 {text-decoration: underline ; color: #0000ee}
span.s6 {color: #ffa827}
span.s7 {color: #6c6c6c}
span.s8 {text-decoration: underline ; color: #103ffb}
</style>
<p class="p1"><br class=""></p>
<p class="p2">Cheers,</p>
<p class="p3"><br class=""></p>
<p class="p2">Chris Disspain<span class="s1"> </span><span class="s2">|</span><span class="s1"> </span>Chief Executive Officer</p>
<p class="p2">.au Domain Administration Ltd</p>
<p class="p2">T: <span class="s3">+61 3 8341 4111</span><span class="s1"> </span><span class="s2">|</span><span class="s1"> </span>F: <span class="s3">+61 3 8341 4112</span></p>
<p class="p4"><span class="s4">E:</span><span class="s1"> <a href="mailto:ceo@auda.org.au" class=""><span class="s5">ceo@auda.org.au</span></a> </span><span class="s6">|</span><span class="s1"> </span><span class="s4">W:</span><span class="s7"> <a href="http://www.auda.org.au/" class=""><span class="s8">www.auda.org.au</span></a></span><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></p>
<p class="p2">auDA – Australia’s Domain Name Administrator</p>
<p class="p5"><br class=""></p>
<p class="p6"><br class=""></p>
</div>
<br class=""><div><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">On 21 May 2015, at 19:49 , Edward Morris <<a href="mailto:egmorris1@toast.net" class="">egmorris1@toast.net</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><div class=""><div dir="ltr" class="">Hi Chris,<br class=""><div class="gmail_extra"><br class=""><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><div style="word-wrap:break-word" class=""><span style="font-family:Verdana;font-size:13px;color:rgb(102,102,102)" class=""><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">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. </div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><div class=""><br class=""></div></div></span></div></blockquote><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">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:</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><div class="">A corporation is subject at all times to examination by the</div><div class="">Attorney General, on behalf of the state, to ascertain the condition</div><div class="">of its affairs and to what extent, if at all, it fails to comply with</div><div class="">trusts which it has assumed or has departed from the purposes for</div><div class="">which it is formed. In case of any such failure or departure the</div><div class="">Attorney General may institute, in the name of the state, the</div><div class="">proceeding necessary to correct the noncompliance or departure.</div></div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">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. </div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Thanks for raising the issue. Accountability has many moving parts and it's good we're having this discussion.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Best,</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Edward Morris</div></div></div></div>
</div></blockquote></div><br class=""></div></div></span></body></html>