<html>
<body>
This tends to pretty well correlate with the position that most in the
ALAC have supported.<br><br>
Alan<br><br>
At 15/06/2015 03:03 AM, Roelof Meijer wrote:<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">Keith,<br><br>
<font face="Calibri">I wonder if with "</font>If a future ICANN
Board were to jump the tracks, the community will no longer have the NTIA
backstop. Without legal enforceability, the community would have to trust
future ICANN Boards and trust future California Attorney Generals. “
you’re not oversimplifying or over-contrasting between the
situation with legal enforceability and without.<br><br>
I think that in a situation where the board “jump the track”, the
community ultimately goes through its process to spill the board and the
board refuses to go, that board would be paralyzed in all ways, face
shame and defamation individually on a global scale and would ruin their
personal careers completely.<br>
They would dimply not do that.<br><br>
<font face="Calibri">Best,<br><br>
Roelof<br>
</font><br>
From: <Drazek>, Keith Drazek
<<a href="mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com">kdrazek@verisign.com</a>><br>
Date: zondag 14 juni 2015 03:52<br>
To: Chris Disspain
<<a href="mailto:ceo@auda.org.au">ceo@auda.org.au</a>><br>
Cc:
"<a href="mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org">
accountability-cross-community@icann.org</a>"
<<a href="mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org">
accountability-cross-community@icann.org</a>><br>
Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] [Acct-Legal] Memo - Revised Powers Chart,
Voluntary Model<br><br>
Chris, <br><br>
NTIA's current enforcement powers are indirect but very real. Through its
existing ability to re-bid the IANA Functions contract, NTIA ensures that
ICANN and its Board of Directors remain true to its bylaws. That unique
role is set to change.<br><br>
If a future ICANN Board were to jump the tracks, the community will no
longer have the NTIA backstop. Without legal enforceability, the
community would have to trust future ICANN Boards and trust future
California Attorney Generals. Why shouldn't we instead trust the global
multi-stakeholder community itself? <br><br>
If a future ICANN community were to try to spill the board, wouldn't we
want that consensus decision to be legally enforceable? Or do we want to
allow a future Board to tell the community it was wrong and, claiming
fiduciary responsibility to the corporation, reject the
decision?<br><br>
Ultimately, we're deciding whether authority should rest with the ICANN
Board and the California AG, or with the ICANN community and the
California AG. <br><br>
I'm in favor of the latter.<br><br>
Regards,<br>
Keith <br><br>
<br>
On Jun 13, 2015, at 6:08 PM, Chris Disspain
<<a href="mailto:ceo@auda.org.au">ceo@auda.org.au</a>>
wrote:<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">Hi Paul, <br><br>
I was specifically responding to Keith’s point so hardly a non-sequitur.
<br><br>
<br><br>
Cheers,<br><br>
<br>
Chris<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">On 14 Jun 2015, at 02:29 , Paul
Rosenzweig
<<a href="mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com">
paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com</a>> wrote:<br><br>
Chris<br><br>
We need more formal powers for the community because much of the power of
the NTIA was informal. The only thing that could replace the NTIA
precisely would be the NTIA. I get that you don't like the
membership model. But asking why a non-governmental solution is different
from a governmental one is just a non sequitur. <br><br>
Paul <br><br>
--<br>
Sent from myMail app for Android<br>
Friday, 12 June 2015, 11:12PM -04:00 from Chris Disspain
<<a href="mailto:ceo@auda.org.au">ceo@auda.org.au</a>>:<br><br>
<dl>
<dd>Greetings All, <br><br>
<dd>1. on Becky’s comment below: if that is correct then surely the same
applies to the relationship between the SO/AC and its Unincorporated
Association. If a court cannot enforce a Board spill by the SOs/ACs then
a court can also not make the UA do what the SO or AC wants. Can
it?<br><br>
<dd>2. on Keith’s comment below: How does the NTIA currently have powers
of enforcement over ICANN outside of matters covered in the IANA
contract? If NTIA was/is prepared to enter into an Affirmation of
Commitment with ICANN which can be terminated by either party and is not
legally enforceable, why should we insist on a higher standard? <br><br>
<br><br>
<dd>Cheers,<br><br>
<br>
<dd>Chris<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">
<dd>On 13 Jun 2015, at 02:05 , Drazek, Keith
<<a href="https://e-aj.my.com/x-msg://e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3akdrazek@verisign.com">
kdrazek@verisign.com</a>> wrote:<br><br>
<dd>Thanks Becky,<br><br>
<dd>I think you highlight a key point.<br><br>
<dd>Currently, NTIA and the California Attorney General are the only
enforcement bodies ensuring ICANN remains committed to its
bylaws.<br><br>
<dd>The membership structure would give some of that authority to the
ICANN community through its existing structures -- the SOs and
ACs.<br><br>
<dd>Isn’t that the definition of transitioning the United States
government (in its various forms) out of its unique role?<br><br>
<dd>After NTIA disengages, don’t we want the community to have shared
authority for enforcement, rather than leaving it to the California
Attorney General alone?<br><br>
<dd>Regards,<br>
<dd>Keith<br>
<dd>From:</b>
<a href="https://e-aj.my.com/x-msg://e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3aaccountability%2dcross%2dcommunity%2dbounces@icann.org">
accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org</a>
[<a href="https://e-aj.my.com/x-msg://e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3aaccountability%2dcross%2dcommunity%2dbounces@icann.org">
mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org</a>] On Behalf Of
</b>Burr, Becky<br>
<dd>Sent:</b> Friday, June 12, 2015 11:07 AM<br>
<dd>To:</b> Roelof Meijer; Accountability Cross Community<br>
<dd>Subject:</b> Re: [CCWG-ACCT] FW: [Acct-Legal] Memo - Revised Powers
Chart, Voluntary Model<br>
<dd> <br><br>
<dd>Roelof,<br><br>
<dd>shi<br><br>
<dd>As I understand it, Courts view the bylaws as a contract between a
corporation and its members/shareholders. If ICANN has no members,
the bylaws are not a contract with anyone, so the only party with
authority to enforce would be the Attorney General. (As discussed
elsewhere, this is extremely unlikely to happen outside of a
fraud/corruption situation.)<br>
<dd> <br><br>
<dd>The fact that members of SO’s are legal entities doesn’t change
this. Unless they are members of ICANN, they are not a party to the
bylaws “contract.”<br>
<dd> <br><br>
<dd>B<br><br>
<dd>J. Beckwith Burr<br><br>
<dd>Neustar, Inc. /</b> Deputy General Counsel and Chief Privacy
Officer<br><br>
<dd>1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20006<br><br>
<dd>Office: + 1.202.533.2932 Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 /
<a href="https://e-aj.my.com/x-msg://e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3abecky.burr@neustar.biz">
becky.burr@neustar.biz</a> /
<a href="http://www.neustar.biz/">http://www.neustar.biz</a><br>
<dd> <br><br>
<dd>From: </b>Roelof Meijer
<<a href="https://e-aj.my.com/x-msg://e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3aRoelof.Meijer@sidn.nl">
Roelof.Meijer@sidn.nl</a>><br>
<dd>Date: </b>Friday, June 12, 2015 at 8:18 AM<br>
<dd>To: </b>Accountability Community
<<a href="https://e-aj.my.com/x-msg://e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3aaccountability%2dcross%2dcommunity@icann.org">
accountability-cross-community@icann.org</a>><br>
<dd>Subject: </b>[CCWG-ACCT] FW: [Acct-Legal] Memo - Revised Powers
Chart, Voluntary Model<br>
<dd> <br><br>
<dd>Dear all, and especially dear legal colleagues,<br>
<dd> <br><br>
<dd>The memo states:<br>
<dd> <br><br>
<dd>"If there were a dispute between ICANN and an SO/AC, the parties
could agree to an IRP and binding arbitration, but there would be no
mechanism to restrain ICANN from acting contrary to these decisions, nor
would there be a mechanism to challenge an arbitration decision that
exceeded the scope of authority of the arbitration panel, outside an
unlikely, independent intervention by the California Attorney General.
"<br>
<dd> <br><br>
<dd>I understand that the SO/AC’s, not being legal entities, cannot take
legal action to enforce. However, does that really equal "no
mechanism to restrain ICANN from acting contrary to these
decisions”?<br>
<dd> <br><br>
<dd>Most members of SO’s are legal entities, many members of AC’s are
too, couldn’t those members, being affected parties, individually or
collectively take legal action?<br>
<dd> <br>
<br>
<dd>Alternatively, I would assume that before the ultimate step of
talking legal action against ICANN, the community will have escalated
through its powers and thus has completed the procedure to recall the
entire board. The power to recall the entire board will have to be
combined with the power to in one way or another appoint an interim
board. So, the community, through due process, recalls the board. The
board, in contradiction with the bylaws, refuses “to go”. The community
has recalled the board and thus, through the defined process (also in the
bylaws), appoints an interim board. According to the bylaws, this interim
board is now the legal representative of ICANN. And can take the required
legal action (if necessary) to force the “old” board to go away and get
lost.<br>
<dd> <br><br>
<dd>Would one of these two work?<br>
<dd> <br><br>
<dd>Best,<br>
<dd> <br><br>
<dd>Roelof Meijer<br>
<dd> <br><br>
<dd>From: </b><Hofheimer>, "Joshua T."
<<a href="https://e-aj.my.com/x-msg://e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3ajhofheimer@sidley.com">
jhofheimer@sidley.com</a>><br>
<dd>Date: </b>donderdag 11 juni 2015 06:09<br>
<dd>To:
</b>
"<a href="https://e-aj.my.com/x-msg://e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3accwg%2daccountability5@icann.org">
ccwg-accountability5@icann.org</a>"
<<a href="https://e-aj.my.com/x-msg://e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3accwg%2daccountability5@icann.org">
ccwg-accountability5@icann.org</a>><br>
<dd>Cc: </b>Sidley ICANN CCWG
<<a href="https://e-aj.my.com/x-msg://e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3asidleyicannccwg@sidley.com">
sidleyicannccwg@sidley.com</a>>, ICANN-Adler
<<a href="https://e-aj.my.com/x-msg://e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3aICANN@adlercolvin.com">
ICANN@adlercolvin.com</a>><br>
<dd>Subject: </b>[Acct-Legal] Memo - Revised Powers Chart, Voluntary
Model<br>
<dd> <br><br>
<dd>Dear Legal Sub-Team,<br>
<dd> <br><br>
<dd>Further to the CCWG request on the call last Friday, attached is a
memo revising the summary chart describing the viability of the
enumerated powers under the three models – Member model, Designator Model
and Voluntary Model. We also explore the impact of not having the
SO/ACs organized legal persons to represent their interests.<br>
<dd> <br><br>
<dd>Cheers,<br><br>
<dd>Josh<br><br>
<dd>JOSHUA</b> HOFHEIMER <br>
</b><br>
<dd>Sidley Austin LLP<br>
<dd>+1.213.896.6061 (LA direct)<br>
<dd>+1.650.565.7561 (PA direct)<br>
<dd>+1.323.708.2405 (cell)<br>
<dd>
<a href="https://e-aj.my.com/x-msg://e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3ajhofheimer@sidley.com">
jhofheimer@sidley.com</a><br>
<dd><a href="http://www.sidley.com/" eudora="autourl">
http://www.sidley.com</a><br>
<a href="https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.sidley.com_&d=AwMF-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=QOhQjQwFElYq1-xAGs6TVUWxpVd3OZaCVRq9bV-0pUg&s=8g0nj7XBKequ4xTeqTLzy3EvyRZsOpZlGqNG7PIfFS4&e=">
<br>
</a>
<dd> SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP<br>
</b>
<dd> <br>
<dd> <br><br>
<dd>From:</b>
<a href="https://e-aj.my.com/x-msg://e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3accwg%2daccountability5%2dbounces@icann.org">
ccwg-accountability5-bounces@icann.org</a>
[<a href="https://e-aj.my.com/x-msg://e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3accwg%2daccountability5%2dbounces@icann.org">
mailto:ccwg-accountability5-bounces@icann.org</a>] On Behalf Of
</b>Hilton, Tyler<br>
<dd>Sent:</b> Monday, June 08, 2015 8:29 PM<br>
<dd>To:</b>
<a href="https://e-aj.my.com/x-msg://e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3accwg%2daccountability5@icann.org">
ccwg-accountability5@icann.org</a><br>
<dd>Subject:</b> [Acct-Legal] Memo - Responses to CCWG GAC Questions<br>
<dd> <br><br>
<dd>Dear Legal Sub-team,<br>
<dd> <br><br>
<dd>Attached please find a memo responding to the list of questions from
the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) provided to us on June 5,
2015.<br>
<dd> <br><br>
<dd>Best,<br>
<dd> <br><br>
<dd>TYLER</b> HILTON</b><br>
<dd>Associate<br><br>
<dd>Sidley Austin LLP<br>
<dd>555 West Fifth Street<br>
<dd>Los Angeles, CA 90013<br>
<dd>+1.213.896.6130<br>
<dd>
<a href="https://e-aj.my.com/x-msg://e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3athilton@sidley.com">
thilton@sidley.com</a><br>
<dd><a href="http://www.sidley.com/" eudora="autourl">
http://www.sidley.com</a><br>
<a href="https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.sidley.com_&d=AwMF-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=QOhQjQwFElYq1-xAGs6TVUWxpVd3OZaCVRq9bV-0pUg&s=8g0nj7XBKequ4xTeqTLzy3EvyRZsOpZlGqNG7PIfFS4&e=">
<br>
</a>
<dd> SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP<br>
</b>
<dd> <br>
<dd> <br><br>
<dd>
****************************************************************************************************<br>
<dd>This e-mail is sent by a law firm and may contain information that is
privileged or confidential.<br>
<dd>If you are not the intended recipient, please delete the e-mail and
any attachments and notify us<br>
<dd>immediately.<br><br>
<dd>
****************************************************************************************************<br>
<dd>_______________________________________________<br>
<dd>Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list<br>
<dd>
<a href="https://e-aj.my.com/x-msg://e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3aAccountability%2dCross%2dCommunity@icann.org">
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a><br>
<dd>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community" eudora="autourl">
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a>
</blockquote><br>
<dd>_______________________________________________<br>
<dd>Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list<br>
<dd>
<a href="https://e-aj.my.com/x-msg://1/compose?To=Accountability%2dCross%2dCommunity@icann.org">
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a><br>
<dd>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community" eudora="autourl">
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a>
<br>
</blockquote>
</dl><br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org">
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a><br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community" eudora="autourl">
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a>
<br><br>
</blockquote>_______________________________________________<br>
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list<br>
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community" eudora="autourl">
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a>
</blockquote></body>
</html>