<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 14 (filtered medium)">
<!--[if !mso]><style>v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
o\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
.shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
</style><![endif]--><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Wingdings;
panose-1:5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0;}
@font-face
{font-family:PMingLiU;
panose-1:2 2 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0;}
@font-face
{font-family:PMingLiU;
panose-1:2 2 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Verdana;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:"\@PMingLiU";
panose-1:2 2 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p.MsoAcetate, li.MsoAcetate, div.MsoAcetate
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Balloon Text Char";
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:8.0pt;
font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";}
p.MsoListParagraph, li.MsoListParagraph, div.MsoListParagraph
{mso-style-priority:34;
margin-top:0in;
margin-right:0in;
margin-bottom:0in;
margin-left:.5in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
span.BalloonTextChar
{mso-style-name:"Balloon Text Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Balloon Text";
font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";}
span.EmailStyle20
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
/* List Definitions */
@list l0
{mso-list-id:1486969632;
mso-list-type:hybrid;
mso-list-template-ids:-793971886 67698703 67698713 67698715 67698703 67698713 67698715 67698703 67698713 67698715;}
@list l0:level1
{mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l0:level2
{mso-level-number-format:alpha-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l0:level3
{mso-level-number-format:roman-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:right;
text-indent:-9.0pt;}
@list l0:level4
{mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l0:level5
{mso-level-number-format:alpha-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l0:level6
{mso-level-number-format:roman-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:right;
text-indent:-9.0pt;}
@list l0:level7
{mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l0:level8
{mso-level-number-format:alpha-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l0:level9
{mso-level-number-format:roman-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:right;
text-indent:-9.0pt;}
@list l1
{mso-list-id:1639846012;
mso-list-type:hybrid;
mso-list-template-ids:366888302 67698689 67698691 67698693 67698689 67698691 67698693 67698689 67698691 67698693;}
@list l1:level1
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:Symbol;}
@list l1:level2
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:o;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:"Courier New";}
@list l1:level3
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l1:level4
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:Symbol;}
@list l1:level5
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:o;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:"Courier New";}
@list l1:level6
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l1:level7
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:Symbol;}
@list l1:level8
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:o;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:"Courier New";}
@list l1:level9
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l2
{mso-list-id:2034570273;
mso-list-template-ids:-479144554;}
@list l2:level1
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Symbol;}
@list l2:level2
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:1.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Symbol;}
@list l2:level3
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:1.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Symbol;}
@list l2:level4
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:2.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Symbol;}
@list l2:level5
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:2.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Symbol;}
@list l2:level6
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:3.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Symbol;}
@list l2:level7
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:3.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Symbol;}
@list l2:level8
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:4.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Symbol;}
@list l2:level9
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:4.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Symbol;}
ol
{margin-bottom:0in;}
ul
{margin-bottom:0in;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Many thanks to Greg and Phil for their detailed analysis. I also think Avri’s suggestion re: implementation of the Sole Member Mechanism pending official transition
in fall 2016 is very constructive. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">I am going to avoid the procedural issues with this new proposal and try to get a better understanding of the comments.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">These elements may be touched in Greg’s chart somewhere but on an “aerial view” of the MEM, I had the following questions:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph" style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo4"><![if !supportLists]><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><span style="mso-list:Ignore">1.<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"">
</span></span></span><![endif]><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">What level of consensus would operate to initiate enforcement action? What level would be necessary within any given SO/AC to initiate enforcement
and then what level for the entire Community to consider and develop Consensus? Does the Board anticipate there would be any delays resulting from the MEM “consensus enforcement decision” process as opposed to the Sole Member voting process? I am familiar
with Working Group consensus levels as defined in the Policy Development Process Manual. I also Chair the GNSO Standing Committee on Improvement Implementation (SCI) for 2015 and have been on that Committee a few years as IPC designate. SCI works on
<u>full consensus</u> which we believe is appropriate when considering procedural matters for GNSO Council. However, it is clear that this level of consensus requires an enormous amount of time. Then there is an animal within ICANN known as “Consensus Policy”
and that requires a PDP and results in binding contractual obligations for Contracted Parties. In the MEM proposal from the Board, what specifically is meant by the use of the word “consensus” in each instance?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph" style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo4"><![if !supportLists]><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><span style="mso-list:Ignore">2.<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"">
</span></span></span><![endif]><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">What would determine the composition of the MEM and what level of voting by that group would be necessary before enforcement is initiated? (Is it
representative in nature as is the Sole Member model?) in other words, what is the exact interplay between the “Community Consensus” for enforcement and direct action taken by the MEM?
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph" style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo4"><![if !supportLists]><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><span style="mso-list:Ignore">3.<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"">
</span></span></span><![endif]><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">If the MEM has capacity to sue for enforcement as stated in the Board proposal, what is its legal personhood? Is it a California non-profit association?
What statutes govern? Or are all of its obligations contractual within ICANN? Is there any potential conflict between the CA statutes that may apply to the legal person of the MEM and the structure and operation that is proposed by the Board? (Sidley
Adler analysis appropriate here.) Has the proposed alternate structure been analyzed by Jones Day?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph" style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo4"><![if !supportLists]><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><span style="mso-list:Ignore">4.<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"">
</span></span></span><![endif]><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">What standards would the MEM members use to determine injunctive relief? Courts are bound by precedent and legal elements that must be strictly analyzed
for such relief. Members of the MEM would not be. What would be the process for determining the standards to be applied by the MEM for injunctive relief? Would they be bound by legal precedents? (Sidley Adler to weigh in here.)<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph" style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo4"><![if !supportLists]><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><span style="mso-list:Ignore">5.<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"">
</span></span></span><![endif]><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Regarding injunctive relief, it appears this could not be instituted until consensus across the community is established (as opposed to voting within
the Sole Member). History indicates there is a potential lack of effectiveness in waiting to reach such a Community Consensus. (In many cases, this is why the Board acts to resolve differences.) If the Community is unable to act on a full consensus basis,
is the enforcement mechanism effective? Does a lack of full consensus mean the Community should not act to exercise any powers?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph" style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo4"><![if !supportLists]><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><span style="mso-list:Ignore">6.<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"">
</span></span></span><![endif]><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Is there some reason to believe that the MEM would be less vulnerable to capture than the Sole Member?
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph" style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo4"><![if !supportLists]><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><span style="mso-list:Ignore">7.<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"">
</span></span></span><![endif]><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Are there other measures to avoid capture within the Sole Member if that is the chief concern? If GAC participation in the Sole Member is the chief
capture concern that may be raised by NTIA (as alluded to by Fadi on the call) and yet the GAC has not yet decided whether it will participate, then what are we speculating about? If the GAC does not participate in the voting process relative to the Sole
Member but maintains the current formula of elevated status of GAC Advice to the Board, how does this affect the analysis of potential for capture of the Sole Member? (In this regard, I disagree that the remaining “commercial interests” represent a recipe
for capture. The commercial interests reside within the GNSO and there is plenty of disagreement there.) What is ALAC doing? If the GAC elects to stay out of the Sole Member and rely on the status of GAC Advice to the Board, could the CCWG agree that
the status of GAC advice would be a Fundamental By-Law?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph" style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo4"><![if !supportLists]><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><span style="mso-list:Ignore">8.<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"">
</span></span></span><![endif]><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Given the above, does the Board’s proposed alternate structure actually increase accountability? This is a subject for further discussion within the
CCWG and in the meetings in Santa Monica. Prior to that meeting, it would be helpful to have some additional analysis from outside counsel of the Board’s alternative proposal. Certainly we want to consider the Board’s thoughts on this matter in a thoughtful
way. It nevertheless poses huge obstacles to the timeline in the degree of analysis that would be required.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Alternatively, Avri’s idea is very creative and also respects the Multi-Stakeholder bottom-up process. In other words, determine in Dublin whether or not GAC
and ALAC will participate in the Sole Member, then transmit the plan to NTIA, institute the Sole Member in 2016, and pull the trigger on the transition in the fall of 2016. If not successful, punt, fall back, play defense. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">It does not make sense to me to speculate that NTIA will reject the recommendation of the CCWG and refuse to certify the transition to Congress because of the
“risk of capture” of the Sole Member. In fact, when we consider some of the issues that have been the topic of Congressional public hearings, it seems to me Congress may be more concerned about the “risk of capture” related to the operation of the
<u>current</u> structure. There is even a bill in Congress to disapprove the transition unless Amazon is given the .amazon TLD since one viewpoint in Congress is that this decision was representative of government “capture”. (For the record, I have no stake
in the .amazon decision.)<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">I certainly do not think the Board is saying “do it our way or we won’t transmit to NTIA as we promised in our Board resolution”. Let’s assume 100% good faith
on their part and address the comment substantively. However, given all the hard work undertaken by this CCWG and the bottom up process followed, fear of disapproval of the IANA transition should not motivate the structural changes (or lack thereof) proposed
for increasing Accountability within ICANN. It makes much more sense to me to believe that the Executive Branch of the USG has every reason to move this transition forward before the President leaves office.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">I am originally from the Midwest and will use a farmer’s analogy here. If the risk identified in the CCWG proposal is “capture”, could it be that the alternate
structure proposed by the Board is “burning down a barn to roast a steer?” (I’ll stay away from pig roasting analogies on Rosh Hashannah.)
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">The next call begins at 11 pm tonight for me – not sure of being able to make that one so my thoughts/questions are as shown above. Very interested to see
a Sidley Adler analysis of the Board’s proposal prior to the face to face if possible. (I am not a California lawyer.)<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Anne<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div>
<table class="MsoNormalTable" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" style="border-collapse:collapse">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td width="67" rowspan="7" valign="top" style="width:.7in;padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><img width="150" height="62" id="Picture_x0020_1" src="cid:image001.gif@01D0EED9.4899FE70"></span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</td>
<td width="355" valign="top" style="width:3.7in;padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black">Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel</span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="355" valign="top" style="width:3.7in;padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black">Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP |
</span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="355" valign="top" style="width:3.7in;padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black">One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611</span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="355" valign="top" style="width:3.7in;padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black">(T) 520.629.4428 | (F) 520.879.4725</span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="355" valign="top" style="width:3.7in;padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><u><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:blue"><a href="mailto:AAikman@LRRLaw.com" target="_new" title="Email User">AAikman@LRRLaw.com</a></span></u></b><b><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black">
| <a href="http://www.lrrlaw.com/" target="_new" title="Lewis and Roca Webpage">
<span style="color:blue">www.LRRLaw.com</span></a></span></b><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:blue"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="355" valign="top" style="width:3.7in;padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt"></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="355" valign="top" style="width:3.7in;padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt"></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D;display:none"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<table class="MsoNormalTable" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" style="border-collapse:collapse">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td width="19" valign="top" style="width:.2in;padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black"></span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</td>
<td width="25" valign="bottom" style="width:18.8pt;padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black"> </span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif""> accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Phil Corwin<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Sunday, September 13, 2015 6:06 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> Greg Shatan; accountability-cross-community@icann.org<br>
<b>Subject:</b> [CCWG-ACCT] Fundamental Differences Beteen SMM & MEM--RE: Summary Comparison Chart of Board Comments Matrix and Notes<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Thanks for doing this Greg. It is very helpful (and Happy New Year).<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">And thank you for discerning that the Board may be urging that the WS2 work be shunted to the dead end swamp of a PDP. I think this would be a grave mistake,
jeopardizing both cohesion and inertia. If anything like this was adopted I would urge a re-think and expansiomn of what should be in WS1 and thus assured of timely implementation.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">As for your observation at the top of the second page, “Unclear what is meant by “community powers” (may be referring to Fundamental Bylaws)”, the answer can
be found in the Memo on proposed Approach for Community Enforceability:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<ul style="margin-top:0in" type="disc">
<li class="MsoNormal" style="color:#1F497D;mso-list:l1 level1 lfo3"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">MEM arbitration would
<b>only</b> be for alleged violations of Fundamental Bylaws, while the CCWG’s SMM-based IRP would be available for alleged violations of any part of AOC or Bylaws. Under the MEM proposal, for anything other than a Fundamental Bylaw allegation only the present
IRP (which is limited scope and only advisory, at least according to the longstanding Board and Jones Day position – is that still the case post-.Africa?) would remain in place as the available, inadequate remedy.<o:p></o:p></span></li><li class="MsoNormal" style="color:#1F497D;mso-list:l1 level1 lfo3"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">Under MEM, if the Board were found to have violated a Fundamental Bylaw it would be required to remedy that, but in a manner
“within its discretion”. That could allow for a very watered down response that nonetheless might qualify as an acceptable remedy, and there is no clear way for community to challenge the Board’s decision. The SMM’s IRP allows for a binding decision to be
ordered implemented by the Board.<o:p></o:p></span></li><li class="MsoNormal" style="color:#1F497D;mso-list:l1 level1 lfo3"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">Access to courts is available under MEM only if the Board has failed to remedy after an adverse decision. But, as just noted,
the discretion leeway might allow for a very weak ‘remedy’ that nonetheless could still be deemed sufficient to block access to the courts. Court access is assured under the SMM.<o:p></o:p></span></li></ul>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">If the Board’s alternative were to be adopted I think it would be incumbent upon the CCWG to review and probably expand the number of Fundamental Bylaws, as
they would be the only basis for invoking a MEM arbitration. That would of course have the downside of making more of the Bylaws subject to a higher threshold for change.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Given the input that the CCWG received from its lawyers, I remain skeptical that the MEM provides a model that creates adequate legal standing for court access.
Even if it does, the individuals composing the MEM Issue Group would appear to have potential personal liability, although the MEM proposal says that ICANN will indemnify and hold them harmless due to that. Regardless of that offer, the individuals involved
(heads of internal ICANN groups) may still hesitate to invoke MEM much more than under the framework of the CCWG’s SMM proposal because of the risk of being personally caught up in litigation – and potentially liable.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">In that litigation liability regard, note Q. 14 in the FAQ document:<o:p></o:p></span></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Q14: Does the MEM Issue Group possess the right to sue ICANN in order to enforce the MEM arbitration decision in court? If so, is there a risk that the MEM
Issue Group can be sued? <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">A14:
<b>The capacity to sue comes along with the capacity to be sued, although it is highly unlikely that the MEM Issue Group would engage in any conduct that would be subject to litigation.</b> In any event, ICANN will indemnify the MEM Issue Group, and will bear
the fees and expenses that might be incurred in any lawsuit arising out of the enforcement of a MEM final arbitration decision. (Emphasis added)<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Therefore, there is a possibility that in a very heated future disagreement, ICANN might express its view that the individual members of the MEM were potentially
engaging in conduct subject to litigation and that invoking a MEM arbitration might invite a countersuit. That could certainly dampen the willingness to proceed. Even if the hold harmless and indemnify pledge bears out, who wants to be caught up in the misery
of a lawsuit?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Summing up, as I read it, the scope of Board action subject to MEM-triggered arbitration is much narrower than under the CCWG’s proposal, and the Board retains
very broad discretion to respond to an adverse MEM decision with a weak remedy that could nonetheless be sufficient to block access to court.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">So the
<b>Fundamental Difference</b> between the CCWG Proposal and the Board’s proposed alternative is not just replacement of the SMM with the MEM, all other things being equal. The scope of actions subject to MEM arbitration would be much narrower, the ability to
compel the Board to take a particular action would be substantially diluted, and the individuals comprising the MEM would be exposed to litigation risk. I don’t see how that squares with the level of enhanced accountability deemed necessary by the CCWG.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">That is my reading of what the Board has provided. If I am wrong in any aspect of that reading then I would appreciate being so advised.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Best to all,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Philip<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:navy">Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal</span></b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:navy">Virtualaw LLC</span></b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:navy">1155 F Street, NW</span></b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:navy">Suite 1050</span></b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:navy">Washington, DC 20004</span></b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:navy">202-559-8597/Direct</span></b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:navy">202-559-8750/Fax</span></b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:navy">202-255-6172/cell</span><span style="color:navy"><o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:navy"><o:p> </o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:navy">Twitter: @VlawDC</span></b><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:black"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><i><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:navy">"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey</span></i></b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"">
<a href="mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org">accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org</a> [<a href="mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org">mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org</a>]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Greg Shatan<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Sunday, September 13, 2015 3:03 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> <a href="mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org">accountability-cross-community@icann.org</a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Summary Comparison Chart of Board Comments Matrix and Notes<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif"">Here is the PDF.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif""><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif"">Greg<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On Sun, Sep 13, 2015 at 3:01 PM, Greg Shatan <<a href="mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com" target="_blank">gregshatanipc@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif"">All,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif""><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif"">I've reviewed the Board's Comments Matrix and Notes in some detail. I found it somewhat difficult to extract the key disagreements with and differences from our proposal, given the length
and format of the document.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif""><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif"">I've prepared a chart attempting to summarize all of the key disagreements/differences (and mentioning a few but not all of the key points of agreement as well). I've also inserted my own
notes, as well. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif""><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif"">I found this very helpful and I hope you will too. If desired, I can put this up as a Google Doc if others want to refine it or comment on it collaboratively. I'll send a PDF shortly.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif""><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif"">Many of the Board's key points have been mentioned in prior discussions or documents. There is one important point that I don't recall seeing earlier.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif""><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif"">The Board essentially rejects the idea of Work Stream 2 and wants all of this work done using other ICANN community processes instead. This is explained fully in point 47, but foreshadowed
in a number of places throughout the document.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif""><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif"">I hope you find this useful.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif""><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif"">L'shana Tova and Happy New Year to those observing the holiday.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif""><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif"">Regards,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif""><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif"">Greg<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align:center">
<hr size="1" width="100%" noshade="" style="color:#A0A0A0" align="center">
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">No virus found in this message.<br>
Checked by AVG - <a href="http://www.avg.com">www.avg.com</a><br>
Version: 2015.0.6081 / Virus Database: 4401/10465 - Release Date: 08/19/15<br>
Internal Virus Database is out of date.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<br>
<hr>
<font face="Arial" color="Gray" size="1"><br>
This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message
or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying
to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521.
<br>
</font>
</body>
</html>