<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">Bruce,</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">That bypasses the community structures entirely, as well as those communities that are not composed of legal persons. For instance, all of those pesky non-contracted parties in the GNSO's Commercial Stakeholder Group and Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group, and also the ALAC (and SSAC and RSSAC, for that matter).</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">The "directly affected parties" language (and your list) tends to exclude these groups, but they cannot be excluded from the multistakeholder model or the community.</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">Greg</div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 4:56 AM, Bruce Tonkin <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au" target="_blank">Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Also even apart from the language used in the bylaws, ICANN can also agree some of the powers via contracts with directly affected parties - e.g. gTLD registries, ccTLD managers, and gTLD registrars amongst others.<br>
<br>
Regards,<br>
Bruce Tonkin<br>
<br>
<br>
-----Original Message-----<br>
From: Bruce Tonkin<br>
Sent: Friday, 17 July 2015 10:55 AM<br>
To: Accountability Cross Community<br>
Subject: RE: [CCWG-ACCT] Concept of some form of "independent" member<br>
<br>
Hello Greg,<br>
<span class="im HOEnZb"><br>
>> Members have a legally distinct role in a nonprofit corporation, particularly with regard to authority and decision-making vis a vis the Board. <br>
<br>
</span><div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5">Yes I get that. Members have a series of statutory rights under the law of where the membership organization is incorporated.<br>
<br>
However my understanding is that we are actually explicitly enshrining the powers that the community seeks into the bylaws.<br>
<br>
So then surely the issue is then whether ICANN is adhering to the new bylaws.<br>
<br>
The IRP is a mechanism to adjudicate if there is a dispute about whether the Board is adhering to these bylaws. I hope that there are also some lighter weight mechanisms - reconsideration/ombudsman as a step before needing to use an IRP (which currently seems to cost hundreds of thousands of dollars and that is just the panel's costs, and take years to resolve).<br>
<br>
Then there is a need to ensure that the Board abides by the outcome of the IRP.<br>
<br>
My proposal was how to deal with the unlikely situation where the Board goes against an IRP panel.<br>
<br>
Regards,<br>
Bruce Tonkin<br>
<br>
<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" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div>