<html><head><meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body dir="auto"><div>Hello David,</div><div id="AppleMailSignature"><br></div><div id="AppleMailSignature">I appreciate the constructive criticism đ.</div><div id="AppleMailSignature"><br></div><div id="AppleMailSignature">Are these points not the same as with the IRP in the sole member model? They would need to be addressed in either case wouldn't they?</div><div id="AppleMailSignature"><br><div>Cheers,</div><div> </div><div>Chris </div></div><div><br>On 22 Sep 2015, at 21:59, McAuley, David <<a href="mailto:dmcauley@verisign.com">dmcauley@verisign.com</a>> wrote:<br><br></div><blockquote type="cite"><div>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 14 (filtered medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-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;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-compose;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></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]-->
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="color:black">I appreciate the boardâs input and take it as a good faith effort to enhance and evolve the CCWG proposal.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">However, I have, with respect, three critiques of it.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">First, the ability to create a remedy if the MEM panel finds against the board is completely within the boardâs discretion. Even a slight (even inconsequential) âremedyâ would be a remedy and would, effectively, bar any viable avenue to
court enforcement. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Second, (and this applies to any panel ruling) any decision by the board to state that a ruling against it falls into the area of the boardâs fiduciary obligations (thus frustrating implementation of the ruling) should itself be appealable
to ensure that this is, in fact, an objectively justified conclusion. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">And, third, if we went down this path, the boardâs ability to create a remedy (subject, I would urge, to some test for reasonableness) should be time-limited so that a claimant need not wait and wonder if it can ever appeal to court. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">David McAuley<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</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></body></html>