<div dir="ltr"><div><font color="#500050">Dear Roelof</font></div><div><font color="#500050">Thank you for your useful thoughts and thoughts of those other colleagues in exercising the inspection rights and other rights as mentioned</font></div><div><font color="#500050">I need some clarification on your message in saying</font></div><div><font color="#500050">Quote</font></div><div><font color="#500050"><br></font></div><div><font color="#500050"><em>" But when it comes to recalling an individual board<br> member or other powers to be exercised by a single member, the<br> single member model raises substantial issues."</em></font></div><div><font color="#500050">Unquote</font></div><div><em><font color="#500050"></font></em>What do you mean by other powers? Apart from recalling individual Board,s member what are those other powers from 7 powers that you categorized <strong>as <em><font color="#500050">raises substantial issues?</font></em></strong></div><div><font color="#500050">Regards</font></div><div><font color="#500050">kavouss </font><br></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">2015-07-09 11:00 GMT+03:00 Nigel Roberts <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:nigel@channelisles.net" target="_blank">nigel@channelisles.net</a>></span>:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">+99<span><br>
<br>
On 07/08/2015 11:37 PM, Kieren McCarthy wrote:<br>
</span><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;padding-left:1ex;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid"><span>
A quick view specifically on "rights of inspection".<br>
<br>
I think enabling that some entity gets this right would be one of the<br>
most useful of all possible accountability improvements.<br>
<br>
It would - perhaps over time - pull out any motivations that might exist<br>
for ICANN to be misleading or less than truthful in its reporting. This<br>
is going to be especially important as ICANN receives increasingly large<br>
amounts of revenue and particularly given its current weak financial<br>
controls.<br>
<br>
(See: <a href="http://www.ionmag.asia/2015/07/icann-finances-swallow-the-money/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">http://www.ionmag.asia/2015/07/icann-finances-swallow-the-money/</a>)<br>
<br>
I predict that ICANN corporate will fight hard to prevent any entity<br>
from gaining this right. And that it will continue to fight hard even<br>
when someone has that right. That in itself should be a good indicator<br>
for why it should be a redline for the accountability group.<br>
<br>
To my mind, not allowing ICANN to hide information is the epitome of<br>
actual accountability. If you can't hide it, then to save on<br>
embarrassment you consider how best to share it. Over time, everyone gains.<br>
<br>
<br>
Kieren<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 9:51 AM, Greg Shatan <<a href="mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com" target="_blank">gregshatanipc@gmail.com</a><br></span><span>
<mailto:<a href="mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com" target="_blank">gregshatanipc@gmail.com</a>>> wrote:<br>
<br>
Roelof:<br>
<br>
Derivative rights and the right of inspection are statutory rights<br>
of members under California law. Under a multiple member model,<br>
each member could choose to exercise these rights individually.<br>
Under a single member model, only the single statutory member would<br>
have these rights. Maybe this could be "fixed" so that individual<br>
SOACs could exercise these rights in the name of the single member,<br>
but I don't know if that works.<br>
<br>
If we don't care to have those rights (or any of the rights that<br>
members have individually), then a single member set-up might work.<br>
I would note that the right to inspect ICANN documents (currently<br>
only available in a DIDP) has been an issue of concern. I would<br>
also note that derivative rights are a powerful tool for enforcement<br>
against an entity.<br>
<br>
I agree that when it comes to spilling the whole board, or other<br>
powers intended to be exercised by the community as a whole,, the<br>
single member model has the least issues vis a vis the multiple<br>
member model. But when it comes to recalling an individual board<br>
member or other powers to be exercised by a single member, the<br>
single member model raises substantial issues.<br>
<br>
Greg<br>
<br>
<br>
On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 11:28 AM, Roelof Meijer<br></span><span>
<<a href="mailto:Roelof.Meijer@sidn.nl" target="_blank">Roelof.Meijer@sidn.nl</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:Roelof.Meijer@sidn.nl" target="_blank">Roelof.Meijer@sidn.nl</a>>> wrote:<br>
<br>
Hi Ed,<br>
<br>
Although I have no clue about what it actually means, I am quite<br>
positive that “components of the community” .. “be[ing] able to<br>
avail itself of derivative rights or the right of inspection” is<br>
not a requirement that we formulated as a power, nor a criterium<br>
we formulated for the selection of a mechanism. So I am at a bit<br>
of a loss where that comes from.<br>
<br>
Additionally, I do not see why stakeholders represented “in a<br>
single tent” requiring a specified majority among those<br>
representatives to execute a specific power (let’s say spilling<br>
the board) would have less vitality and more blob, than<br>
stakeholders in separate legal entities equally requiring the<br>
same specified majority among those entities to execute a<br>
specific power.<br>
<br>
Best,<br>
<br>
Roelof<br>
<br>
From: Edward Morris <<a href="mailto:egmorris1@toast.net" target="_blank">egmorris1@toast.net</a><br></span>
<mailto:<a href="mailto:egmorris1@toast.net" target="_blank">egmorris1@toast.net</a>>><span><br>
Date: woensdag 22 april 2015 16:24<br></span>
To: Matthew Shears <<a href="mailto:mshears@cdt.org" target="_blank">mshears@cdt.org</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:mshears@cdt.org" target="_blank">mshears@cdt.org</a>>><br>
Cc: Roelof Meijer <<a href="mailto:roelof.meijer@sidn.nl" target="_blank">roelof.meijer@sidn.nl</a><span><br>
<mailto:<a href="mailto:roelof.meijer@sidn.nl" target="_blank">roelof.meijer@sidn.nl</a>>>, "<a href="mailto:avri@acm.org" target="_blank">avri@acm.org</a><br>
<mailto:<a href="mailto:avri@acm.org" target="_blank">avri@acm.org</a>>" <<a href="mailto:avri@acm.org" target="_blank">avri@acm.org</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:avri@acm.org" target="_blank">avri@acm.org</a>>>,<br>
"<a href="mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org" target="_blank">accountability-cross-community@icann.org</a><br>
<mailto:<a href="mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org" target="_blank">accountability-cross-community@icann.org</a>>"<br>
<<a href="mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org" target="_blank">accountability-cross-community@icann.org</a><br></span>
<mailto:<a href="mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org" target="_blank">accountability-cross-community@icann.org</a>>><span><br>
<br>
Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] member organization and single<br>
membership structure<br>
<br>
I look forward to independent counsel's analysis of this proposal.<br>
<br>
Certainly my principle objection with this model is the<br>
nullification of many of the benefits membership would bring to<br>
components of the community. If the GNSO, for example, felt<br>
strongly about an issue it would not be able to avail itself of<br>
derivative rights or the right of inspection without the consent<br>
of the greater community. Diversity is the strength of the<br>
multistakeholder model and folding all rights into a single tent<br>
would dampen the vitality of the diverse bottom up process and<br>
instead submerge it into a giant blob like unit.<br>
<br>
I do remain open, though, to others thoughts on the matter and<br>
thank Roelof for bringing it up.<br>
<br>
Ed<br>
<br>
Sent from my iPad<br>
<br>
On Apr 22, 2015, at 3:02 PM, Matthew Shears <<a href="mailto:mshears@cdt.org" target="_blank">mshears@cdt.org</a><br></span>
<mailto:<a href="mailto:mshears@cdt.org" target="_blank">mshears@cdt.org</a>>> wrote:<br>
<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;padding-left:1ex;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid"><div><div class="h5">
<br>
If this would achieve the same result as the broader<br>
membership model and at the same time be simpler to implement<br>
shouldn't it be looked at again? Was there a specific reason<br>
it was discounted?<br>
<br>
Matthew<br>
<br>
On 4/22/2015 2:56 PM, Roelof Meijer wrote:<br>
</div></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;padding-left:1ex;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid"><div><div class="h5">
Hi Avri,<br>
<br>
The sole membership construction, is a possibility described<br>
in the legal document in several places: the comments by the<br>
legal experts on the PCCWG mechanism template (page 64) and<br>
the Community Council mechanism template (page 69). I sent<br>
several emails about it to the WP1 list, suggesting to look<br>
in the possibility as indeed it would not necessitate every<br>
SO and AC to become a legal entity. And, as you do,<br>
suggesting: "make the „Community Council” the sole member of<br>
ICANN (and thus a formal legal entity), consisting of either<br>
the SO and AC chairs or SO/AC elected representatives” (from<br>
an email of 14 April).<br>
<br>
And I would think it would enable the SO’s and AC’s<br>
themselves to continue appointing directors, as they do now.<br>
But that’s just guessing, based on the fact that the SO’s and<br>
AC’s themselves would not change status<br>
<br>
Best,<br>
<br>
Roelof<br>
<br></div></div>
From: Avri Doria <<a href="mailto:avri@acm.org" target="_blank">avri@acm.org</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:avri@acm.org" target="_blank">avri@acm.org</a>>><br>
Organization: Technicalities<br>
Reply-To: "<a href="mailto:avri@acm.org" target="_blank">avri@acm.org</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:avri@acm.org" target="_blank">avri@acm.org</a>>" <<a href="mailto:avri@acm.org" target="_blank">avri@acm.org</a><br>
<mailto:<a href="mailto:avri@acm.org" target="_blank">avri@acm.org</a>>><span><br>
Date: woensdag 22 april 2015 15:09<br>
To: "<a href="mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org" target="_blank">accountability-cross-community@icann.org</a><br></span>
<mailto:<a href="mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org" target="_blank">accountability-cross-community@icann.org</a>>"<br>
<<a href="mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org" target="_blank">accountability-cross-community@icann.org</a><br>
<mailto:<a href="mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org" target="_blank">accountability-cross-community@icann.org</a>>><span><br>
Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] member organization and single<br>
membership structure<br>
<br>
Hi,<br>
<br>
On 22-Apr-15 08:26, Roelof Meijer wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;padding-left:1ex;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid">
2)<br>
What I find quite frustrating is that I have raised the<br>
point of the possibility (or not) of a single membership<br>
structure – an option mentioned by Sidley and Adler &<br>
Colving in their legal advice – several times by now without<br>
getting any substantial reaction. I am not aware that any<br>
serious effort to investigate this has led to a formal<br>
write-off.<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
In some way that might lessen the complexity of making most<br>
SOAC an individual legal entity.<br>
<br>
How would it work? Would we continue to appoint Directors<br>
just as we do now?<br>
<br>
Or would there need to be some sort of Members Council that<br>
took actions, working simliarly to the the executive board or<br>
community council idea?<br>
<br>
thanks<br>
<br>
avri<br>
<br>
<br>
<br></span><span>
------------------------------------------------------------------------<br>
Avast logo <<a href="http://www.avast.com/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">http://www.avast.com/</a>> <br>
<br></span><span>
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus<br>
software.<br></span>
<a href="http://www.avast.com" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">www.avast.com</a> <<a href="http://www.avast.com/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">http://www.avast.com/</a>><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org" target="_blank">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org" target="_blank">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a>><a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a><br>
</blockquote><span>
<br>
--<br>
Matthew Shears<br>
Global Internet Policy and Human Rights<br>
Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)<br></span>
<a href="tel:%2B%2044%20%280%29771%20247%202987" target="_blank" value="+447712472987">+ 44 (0)771 247 2987</a> <tel:%2B%2044%20%280%29771%20247%202987><span><br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org" target="_blank">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a><br></span>
<mailto:<a href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org" target="_blank">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a>><br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a><br>
</blockquote><span>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org" target="_blank">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a><br></span>
<mailto:<a href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org" target="_blank">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a>><span><br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org" target="_blank">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a><br></span>
<mailto:<a href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org" target="_blank">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a>><span><br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org" target="_blank">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a><br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a><br>
<br>
</span></blockquote><div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5">
_______________________________________________<br>
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org" target="_blank">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a><br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div>