<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=Windows-1252">
</head>
<body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-size: 14px; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;">
<div>Just as there remains the possibility that the board cold take an action that is outside of the mission, there also remains the possibility that a review team takes a recommendation outside of ICANN’s mission. I think that we’re in agreement that at whichever
level it happens, it would be unacceptable for that action to stand.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>What happens, however, if there’s a robust community process such as community involvement in review team composition selection for robust participation at the review team level, as well as substantial community consultations on a recommendation, and it
results in a recommendation that all involved agree that it is within ICANN’s mission. Then the Board in considering the recommendation, also agrees. Allowing for a follow-on community process to then challenge the board’s acceptance of that community recommendation
seems to create a huge “catch 22” situation for the board and the community. Were there requirements for participation in the vetting of the community recommendations where people were obligated to consider how the recommendation fit with ICANN’s mission?
Is there a requirement imposed on the first instance that recommendations should only be those that are within ICANN’s mission?</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I hope this helps clarify my concern.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Best, </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Sam</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<span id="OLK_SRC_BODY_SECTION">
<div style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; text-align:left; color:black; BORDER-BOTTOM: medium none; BORDER-LEFT: medium none; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0in; PADDING-LEFT: 0in; PADDING-RIGHT: 0in; BORDER-TOP: #b5c4df 1pt solid; BORDER-RIGHT: medium none; PADDING-TOP: 3pt">
<span style="font-weight:bold">From: </span>Mathieu Weill <<a href="mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr">mathieu.weill@afnic.fr</a>><br>
<span style="font-weight:bold">Date: </span>Friday, May 29, 2015 at 12:11 PM<br>
<span style="font-weight:bold">To: </span>Samantha Eisner <<a href="mailto:samantha.eisner@icann.org">samantha.eisner@icann.org</a>><br>
<span style="font-weight:bold">Cc: </span>"Burr, Becky" <<a href="mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz">Becky.Burr@neustar.biz</a>>, Steve DelBianco <<a href="mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org">sdelbianco@netchoice.org</a>>, Accountability Cross Community <<a href="mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org">accountability-cross-community@icann.org</a>><br>
<span style="font-weight:bold">Subject: </span>Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Stress Test on whether the CCWG proposals require courts to interpret ICANN's mission<br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>
<div dir="auto">
<div>Sam,</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Apologies for the confusion. Just read your initial message again and am still uncertain. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>If a review team makes a recommendation outside of icann mission, and if the board accepts it, hopefully it will be challenged to the irp right ? </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Because it seems to me that if a review team issues a recommendation outside of icann mission the accountable way forward would be either :</div>
<div>- reject recommendation on the basis that it is outside of the mission</div>
<div>-or initiate a process to change the by laws (which will be subject to community powers)</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Could you maybe expand on the kind of protection you think of ? Do you mean protect against the initiation of a challenge ? <br>
<br>
Best<br>
<div>Mathieu Weill</div>
<div>---------------</div>
<div>Depuis mon mobile, désolé pour le style</div>
</div>
<div><br>
Le 29 mai 2015 à 21:02, Samantha Eisner <<a href="mailto:Samantha.Eisner@icann.org">Samantha.Eisner@icann.org</a>> a écrit :<br>
<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div>
<div>Agreed Mathieu. My question, however, was addressing the situation where the Board ACCEPTED a recommendation from a community group and that was still being challenged (potentially through a community process). It seems that there could be need for additional
protections there.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<span id="OLK_SRC_BODY_SECTION">
<div style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; text-align:left; color:black; BORDER-BOTTOM: medium none; BORDER-LEFT: medium none; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0in; PADDING-LEFT: 0in; PADDING-RIGHT: 0in; BORDER-TOP: #b5c4df 1pt solid; BORDER-RIGHT: medium none; PADDING-TOP: 3pt">
<span style="font-weight:bold">From: </span>Mathieu Weill <<a href="mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr">mathieu.weill@afnic.fr</a>><br>
<span style="font-weight:bold">Date: </span>Friday, May 29, 2015 at 11:55 AM<br>
<span style="font-weight:bold">To: </span>"Burr, Becky" <<a href="mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz">Becky.Burr@neustar.biz</a>><br>
<span style="font-weight:bold">Cc: </span>Samantha Eisner <<a href="mailto:samantha.eisner@icann.org">samantha.eisner@icann.org</a>>, Steve DelBianco <<a href="mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org">sdelbianco@netchoice.org</a>>, Accountability Cross Community <<a href="mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org">accountability-cross-community@icann.org</a>><br>
<span style="font-weight:bold">Subject: </span>Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Stress Test on whether the CCWG proposals require courts to interpret ICANN's mission<br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>
<div dir="auto">
<div>Thanks for your question Sam. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>My understanding is that the irp would assess whether the board decision not to implement is consistent with the mission. (That's the core of the standard of review we have set)</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>If the board has a convincing rationale that says "out of the mission" I fail to see how the panel could decide to cancel the board decision ? </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Isn't that the protection we are talking about ? </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Best<br>
<br>
<div>Mathieu Weill</div>
<div>---------------</div>
<div>Depuis mon mobile, désolé pour le style</div>
</div>
<div><br>
Le 29 mai 2015 à 20:09, "Burr, Becky" <<a href="mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz">Becky.Burr@neustar.biz</a>> a écrit :<br>
<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>Good point. I think there is an answer, but if not it is very fixable.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 11pt; "><span style="font-size: 9pt; font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">J. Beckwith Burr<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 11pt; "><b><span style="font-size: 9pt; font-family: Arial, sans-serif; color: rgb(6, 134, 88);">Neustar, Inc. /</span></b><span style="font-size: 9pt; font-family: Arial, sans-serif;"> Deputy
General Counsel and Chief Privacy Officer<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 11pt; "><span style="font-size: 9pt; font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20006<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 11pt; "><span style="font-size: 9pt; font-family: Arial, sans-serif; color: rgb(6, 134, 88);">Office</span><span style="font-size: 9pt; font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">: + 1.202.533.2932 <span style="color: rgb(6, 134, 88); "> Mobile</span>:
+1.202.352.6367 <span style="color: rgb(6, 134, 88); ">/ <a href="mailto:becky.burr@neustar.biz" style="color: purple; ">becky.burr@neustar.biz</a> /
<a href="http://www.neustar.biz">www.neustar.biz</a></span></span></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<span id="OLK_SRC_BODY_SECTION">
<div style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; text-align:left; color:black; BORDER-BOTTOM: medium none; BORDER-LEFT: medium none; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0in; PADDING-LEFT: 0in; PADDING-RIGHT: 0in; BORDER-TOP: #b5c4df 1pt solid; BORDER-RIGHT: medium none; PADDING-TOP: 3pt">
<span style="font-weight:bold">From: </span>Samantha Eisner <<a href="mailto:Samantha.Eisner@icann.org">Samantha.Eisner@icann.org</a>><br>
<span style="font-weight:bold">Date: </span>Friday, May 29, 2015 at 1:41 PM<br>
<span style="font-weight:bold">To: </span>Becky Burr <<a href="mailto:becky.burr@neustar.biz">becky.burr@neustar.biz</a>>, Steve DelBianco <<a href="mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org">sdelbianco@netchoice.org</a>>, Accountability Community <<a href="mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org">accountability-cross-community@icann.org</a>><br>
<span style="font-weight:bold">Subject: </span>Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Stress Test on whether the CCWG proposals require courts to interpret ICANN's mission<br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>
<div style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-size: 14px; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;">
<div>In the stress test v2 that Steve set out below, doesn’t that call out a different issue?</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>The stress test suggests that there is the possibility that the Board should be subject to an IRP/challenge for the acceptance of a recommendation arising out of the ATRT (or other community-based review team). What are the protections that we are building
into the process so that the review teams themselves are bounded by ICANN’s mission when developing recommendations, so that the Board is not put into the untenable position of accepting community-based recommendations and then being challenged for doing so?
What are the requirements for broader participation in the public comment/development of recommendations to help alleviate this type of situation from ever coming about?</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<span id="OLK_SRC_BODY_SECTION">
<div style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; text-align:left; color:black; BORDER-BOTTOM: medium none; BORDER-LEFT: medium none; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0in; PADDING-LEFT: 0in; PADDING-RIGHT: 0in; BORDER-TOP: #b5c4df 1pt solid; BORDER-RIGHT: medium none; PADDING-TOP: 3pt">
<span style="font-weight:bold">From: </span><Burr>, Becky <<a href="mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz">Becky.Burr@neustar.biz</a>><br>
<span style="font-weight:bold">Date: </span>Friday, May 29, 2015 at 7:19 AM<br>
<span style="font-weight:bold">To: </span>Steve DelBianco <<a href="mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org">sdelbianco@netchoice.org</a>>, Accountability Cross Community <<a href="mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org">accountability-cross-community@icann.org</a>><br>
<span style="font-weight:bold">Subject: </span>Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Stress Test on whether the CCWG proposals require courts to interpret ICANN's mission<br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>
<div style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-size: 14px; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;">
<div>
<div>I think this is basically right. But I think there are ADDITIONAL safeguards that makes litigation even less likely. For example, in Version 1 and 2 below, the ATRT recommendation to adopt a policy would not be directly accepted or rejected by the Board.
Any new substantive policy would need to go through a PDP, which would require ICANN legal to opine whether or not the proposed policy is within the scope of a PDP. If the recommended policy is not a PDP type policy (e.g., a recommended Bylaws change) the
community would have direct input and an opportunity to reject/block. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 11pt; "><span style="font-size: 9pt; font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">J. Beckwith Burr<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 11pt; "><b><span style="font-size: 9pt; font-family: Arial, sans-serif; color: rgb(6, 134, 88);">Neustar, Inc. /</span></b><span style="font-size: 9pt; font-family: Arial, sans-serif;"> Deputy
General Counsel and Chief Privacy Officer<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 11pt; "><span style="font-size: 9pt; font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20006<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 11pt; "><span style="font-size: 9pt; font-family: Arial, sans-serif; color: rgb(6, 134, 88);">Office</span><span style="font-size: 9pt; font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">: + 1.202.533.2932 <span style="color: rgb(6, 134, 88); "> Mobile</span>:
+1.202.352.6367 <span style="color: rgb(6, 134, 88); ">/ <a href="mailto:becky.burr@neustar.biz" style="color: purple; ">becky.burr@neustar.biz</a> /
<a href="http://www.neustar.biz">www.neustar.biz</a></span></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<span id="OLK_SRC_BODY_SECTION">
<div style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; text-align:left; color:black; BORDER-BOTTOM: medium none; BORDER-LEFT: medium none; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0in; PADDING-LEFT: 0in; PADDING-RIGHT: 0in; BORDER-TOP: #b5c4df 1pt solid; BORDER-RIGHT: medium none; PADDING-TOP: 3pt">
<span style="font-weight:bold">From: </span>Steve DelBianco <<a href="mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org">sdelbianco@netchoice.org</a>><br>
<span style="font-weight:bold">Date: </span>Friday, May 29, 2015 at 9:50 AM<br>
<span style="font-weight:bold">To: </span>Accountability Community <<a href="mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org">accountability-cross-community@icann.org</a>><br>
<span style="font-weight:bold">Subject: </span>Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Stress Test on whether the CCWG proposals require courts to interpret ICANN's mission<br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>
<div style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-size: 16px; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;">
<div>
<div>
<div>The thoughtful comments by Arun and Parminder were on Chris Disspain’s original note, which I included in mine. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>But let’s also have a discussion of the two stress tests I proposed (below), suggesting that courts would
<u>not</u> be involved in interpreting ICANN bylaws or mission statement.</div>
<div>—Steve</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>
<div id="MAC_OUTLOOK_SIGNATURE"></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<span id="OLK_SRC_BODY_SECTION">
<div class="gmail_extra">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div class="gmail_extra">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div>
<div class="h5">On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 9:38 PM, Steve DelBianco <span dir="ltr">
<<a href="mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org" target="_blank">sdelbianco@netchoice.org</a>></span> wrote:<br>
</div>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div>
<div class="h5">
<div style="word-wrap:break-word;color:rgb(0,0,0);font-size:16px;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">
<div>
<div>On this week's stress test team call, we looked at Chris Disspain’s hypothetical (at bottom). The team had difficulty identifying a scenario under which a California court would, as Chris suggested, "make binding decisions about interpretation of ICANN’s
mission.” This was due in part to a misunderstanding embedded in Chris’ scenario. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>What we’ve done below is take Chris’ scenario and turn it into two scenarios that could happen under the Member powers described in the CCWG proposal. We don’t think either of these scenarios would result in the outcome Chris worried over. </div>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<span>
<div style="word-wrap:break-word;color:rgb(0,0,0);font-size:16px;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">
<div>
<div>
<div>Stress Test version 1: Board refuses to follow community recommendation </div>
</div>
</div>
<span>
<div style="word-wrap:break-word;color:rgb(0,0,0);font-size:16px;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">
<blockquote style="margin:0 0 0 40px; border:none; padding:0px;">
<div>1. An ATRT (Accountability and Transparency Review Team) recommends a new policy for implementation. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>2. The ICANN board decides to reject the recommendation, saying it conflicts with ICANN’s limited Mission Statement in the amended bylaws.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>3. Community Members vote to challenge the board’s decision with an IRP. An IRP panel of 3 international arbitrators (not a Court) finds that the ATRT recommendation does
<u>not</u> conflict with “substantive limitations on the permissible scope of ICANN’s actions” (p.32). The IRP panel therefore cancels the board decision to reject the ATRT recommendation.(pp. 31-32 of proposal ) Our current proposal does not give Members
the power to force ICANN board to accept and implement the ATRT recommendation. (p.32)</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>4. If the board refused to implementing the ATRT recommendation (see step 1), Members could vote to recall the board. Members could also vote to block the very next budget or strat plan if it did
<u>not</u> include the ATRT recommendation.</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</span></div>
</span>
<blockquote style="margin:0 0 0 40px; border:none; padding:0px;">
<div><br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<span>
<div style="word-wrap:break-word;color:rgb(0,0,0);font-size:16px;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">
<span>
<div style="word-wrap:break-word;color:rgb(0,0,0);font-size:16px;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">
<div>Stress Test version 2: Board follows community recommendation, but is reversed by IRP decision</div>
<div>
<blockquote style="margin:0 0 0 40px; border:none; padding:0px;">
<div>1. An ATRT (Accountability and Transparency Review Team) recommends a new policy for implementation. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>2. The ICANN board decides to <u>accept</u> the recommendation, believing that it does
<u>not</u> conflict with ICANN’s limited Mission Statement in the amended bylaws.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>3. An aggrieved party or Community Members vote to challenge the board’s decision with an IRP. An IRP panel of international arbitrators (not a Court) finds that the ATRT recommendation
<u>does</u> conflict with “substantive limitations on the permissible scope of ICANN’s actions” (p.32). The IRP panel therefore cancels the board decision to accept and implement the ATRT recommendation.(pp. 31-32 of proposal )</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>4. If the board ignored the IRP ruling and continued to implement its earlier decision, parties to the IRP could ask courts to enforce the IRP decision. Would that court re-litigate the IRP’s substantive decision interpreting the ICANN bylaws? That
is not our expectation, since it is only "expected that judgements of the IRP Panel would be
<i><u>enforceable</u></i> in the court of the US and other countries that <i><u>accept international arbitration results</u></i>” (p.34, emphasis added) </div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</span></div>
</span>
<blockquote style="margin:0 0 0 40px; border:none; padding:0px;">
<div><br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<span>
<div style="word-wrap:break-word;color:rgb(0,0,0);font-size:16px;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">
<span>
<div style="word-wrap:break-word;color:rgb(0,0,0);font-size:16px;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">
<div>
<div>
<blockquote style="margin:0 0 0 40px; border:none; padding:0px;">
<div>5. If the ICANN Board continued to ignore the IRP decision and court orders to enforce it, Members could vote to recall the board. Members could also vote to block the very next budget or strat plan if it included implementation of the ATRT recommendation.</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div></div>
</div>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<span>
<div style="font-family:Calibri;font-size:12pt;text-align:left;color:black;BORDER-BOTTOM:medium none;BORDER-LEFT:medium none;PADDING-BOTTOM:0in;PADDING-LEFT:0in;PADDING-RIGHT:0in;BORDER-TOP:#b5c4df 1pt solid;BORDER-RIGHT:medium none;PADDING-TOP:3pt">
<div style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">
<div>
<div>21/05/2015 03:45, Chris Disspain wrote <span style="font-size:12pt">(</span><a href="https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__mm.icann.org_pipermail_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity_2015-2DMay_003035.html&d=AwMGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=X56Me2-F6Etgrc4Kcl5pz3c-js1S7kveIwNV-n4DMoc&s=73saSCa_-ze0blCSpk_1N-36nkQUNVnzPAIrbjO7lSQ&e=" style="font-size:12pt;color:purple" target="_blank">link</a> <span style="font-size:12pt">and
excerpt below):</span></div>
<div><font color="#444444">Second, I would like to use a step-by-step scenario to explain where my concerns lie. Under the CCWG’s currently proposed mechanisms:</font></div>
<div><span style="color:rgb(102,102,102)"><font color="#444444"></font>
<div>
<div style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt"><span style="color:rgb(68,68,68)"><br>
</span></div>
<div style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt"><span style="color:rgb(68,68,68)">1. The community, pursuant to powers defined in a “fundamental bylaw”, and through a vote of that meeting the required threshold for </span><span style="color:rgb(68,68,68);white-space:pre-wrap"></span><span style="color:rgb(68,68,68)">support,
directs the Board to do X</span></div>
<div style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt"><span style="color:rgb(68,68,68)">2. The Board refuses to do X because it maintains that X is outside of the mission of ICANN</span></div>
<div style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt"><span style="color:rgb(68,68,68)">3. The community triggers escalation mechanisms</span></div>
<div style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt"><span style="color:rgb(68,68,68)">4. Escalation proceeds to binding arbitration (as defined by another fundamental bylaw)</span></div>
<div style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt"><span style="color:rgb(68,68,68)">5. The arbitrator finds in favour of the community and directs ICANN to do X</span></div>
<div style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt"><span style="color:rgb(68,68,68)">6. The Board refuses to act, citing, again, that it believes the action is outside of ICANN’s mission</span></div>
<div style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt"><span style="color:rgb(68,68,68)">7. After the necessary community votes etc., the community now heads to court. In the State of California.</span></div>
</div>
</span></div>
</div>
<div><span style="color:rgb(102,102,102)">
<div>
<div style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt"><span style="color:rgb(68,68,68)">
<pre style="white-space:pre-wrap;color:rgb(0,0,0);text-indent:0px;background-color:rgb(255,255,255)"><font face="Calibri">As I understand it, the role of the court in this scenario would be to determine whether the Board is acting in a way that is serving the public interest within ICANN’s mission. It would not be to decide whether, on balance, the community was ‘more right’ than the Board.
Right now as a global multi-stakeholder body we decide the nuances of the meaning of ICANN’s mission and the way ICANN acts under that mission by using the multi-stakeholder process and by compromise and nuanced decision making.
If we agree to the CCWG recommendations we will not be handing ultimate authority to the members but rather we will be handing ultimate authority to a state based American court and allowing it to make binding and precedent setting decisions about the interpretation of ICANN’s mission.
Does the ICANN community really want the specific nuances of ICANN’s mission to be held up to scrutiny and have decisions made, at the highest level, through such a mechanism? Whilst that may give comfort to, for example, US members of the intellectual property community or US listed registries, it gives me no comfort whatsoever.</font></pre>
<div><font face="Calibri"><br>
</font></div>
</span></div>
</div>
</span></div>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div style="word-wrap:break-word;color:rgb(0,0,0)"><span style="font-size:16px;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">
<div>
<div><font face="Verdana" size="2"><span style="font-size:11pt">
<div><font face="Calibri" color="#262626"></font></div>
<div><font face="Calibri"></font></div>
</span></font></div>
</div>
</span></div>
</div>
</span></div>
</span></div>
</span></div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<br>
</div>
</span></div>
</div>
</span></div>
</div>
</span></div>
</div>
</span></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://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a></span><br>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</span></div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</span>
</body>
</html>