<div dir="ltr">hi Kavouss, all<div><br></div><div>I would like to very clearly note that the people who raised the idea of "dissolving the corporation" at the LA meeting who I heard were Chris Disspain and George Sadowsky, both Board members.</div><div><br></div><div>I am not brainstorming here. The list of statutory powers relevant to the CMSM were set out by our legal advisors in late July:</div><div><br></div><div><<a href="https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=52896826&preview=/52896826/56139270/Chart%20of%20Mandatory%20Statutory%20Member%20Rights%20Relevant%20to%20CMSM%20%2800700152xA3536%29.pdf">https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=52896826&preview=/52896826/56139270/Chart%20of%20Mandatory%20Statutory%20Member%20Rights%20Relevant%20to%20CMSM%20%2800700152xA3536%29.pdf</a>><br></div><div><br></div><div>If we do have a membership model, I am confident we need bulletproof clarity about how every single one of these powers would / could be exercised, or locked away.</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>best</div><div>Jordan</div><div><br></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On 30 September 2015 at 20:36, Kavouss Arasteh <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com" target="_blank">kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div>Dear All,</div><div>Every day , a new novel idea such as </div><div>Quote</div><div><em>"Aside from the five( SIX OR SEVEN ???) community powers and the ability to enforce the bylaws against the Board, the other powers the California law grants to member/s (<font color="#ff0000">document inspection</font>, <font color="#ff0000">dissolve the company</font>, etc), should face such high thresholds to action that they can, practically speaking, never be actioned at all."</em></div><div>The <font color="#ff0000">dissolution of the company </font>is a new brand and novel idea which strikes a lot. What we intend to do ? to increase and increase the Community power for which we have serious difficulties on how to exercise that power?<br>This is a disturbing bream storming?<br>Kavouss <br><br></div><div>Unquote</div><div><br></div></div><div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5"><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">2015-09-30 9:29 GMT+02:00 Kavouss Arasteh <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com" target="_blank">kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com</a>></span>:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div>It is surprising to hear that </div><div>Quote</div><div><span>"<em>For the exercise of any of the Member Powers the CMSM would have<br></em><em><span> (beyond those we "want" it to have), why don't we include the ICANN<br> Board as one of the groups that has to vote / come to consensus to<br></span>exercise them?"<br></em></span>Unquote</div><div>The above proposal is mixing the mandate of executive power with legislative power in the sense that the Board will seat on the same boat as the SOs and ACs and participate in voting relating to accountability of ICANN This means that ICANN decides on accountability of itself.?<br> How people comes with such an strange idea>?</div><div>No .It does not work as it totally against the very principle of separation of powers that we discussed and Mathieu put it in his Slides in CCWG Webinar</div><div>Regards</div><span><font color="#888888"><div>Kavouss <span><br></span></div></font></span></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div><div>2015-09-30 8:44 GMT+02:00 Chartier, Mike S <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:mike.s.chartier@intel.com" target="_blank">mike.s.chartier@intel.com</a>></span>:<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>
<div lang="EN-US" vlink="purple" link="blue">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:rgb(31,73,125);font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;font-size:11pt">Agree.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:rgb(31,73,125);font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;font-size:11pt">I think the level of consent ultimately reduces to whatever consent is needed to amend the bylaw, however.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><a name="1501d2e5df40f29d_1501d280b50029fd_1501cff136749dcf__MailEndCompose"><span style="color:rgb(31,73,125);font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;font-size:11pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></a></p>
<div>
<div style="border-width:1pt medium medium;border-style:solid none none;border-color:rgb(225,225,225) currentColor currentColor;padding:3pt 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;font-size:11pt">From:</span></b><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;font-size:11pt"> <a href="mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org" target="_blank">accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org</a> [mailto:<a href="mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org" target="_blank">accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org</a>]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Steve DelBianco<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Tuesday, September 29, 2015 8:29 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> Jordan Carter; Accountability Cross Community<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [CCWG-ACCT] A way to avoid the 'The Single Member Can Do Anything!' problem<u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
</div><div><div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">Good idea to start this thread, Jordan. <u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">I learned in Los Angeles that Jones Day had not noticed how CCWG proposed to restrict the single member’s ability to exercise some statutory powers (such as dissolving the corporation
or forcing a new bylaw). <u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">So, first step is hear whether Jones Day now supports our notion of using bylaws to require an extraordinary level of consensus in the community before such powers could be used.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">I appreciate your idea of adding the Board to the other AC/SO community who would have to approve the Single Member exercising those extreme powers. <u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">But I think we should start by requiring unanimous consent of the ACs and SOs defined in ICANN bylaws. Then, if Jones Day says THAT'S not enough, we could add the board too. <u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div style="border-width:1pt medium medium;border-style:solid none none;border-color:rgb(181,196,223) currentColor currentColor;padding:3pt 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="color:black;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">From:
</span></b><span style="color:black;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><<a href="mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org" target="_blank">accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org</a>> on behalf of Jordan Carter<br>
<b>Date: </b>Tuesday, September 29, 2015 at 8:15 PM<br>
<b>To: </b>Accountability Cross Community<br>
<b>Subject: </b>[CCWG-ACCT] A way to avoid the 'The Single Member Can Do Anything!' problem<u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">Hi all
<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">One of the pieces of feedback from Board members I heard in L.A. was a concern that basically goes like this:<u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">"The Single Member is a problematic idea because of the incredible powers it has under California law - for instance, it could even dissolve ICANN!"<u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">There were some sub-themes to this concern:<u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">- the accountability of SO/AC actors in exercising the powers intended for the CMSM<u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">- the absence of fiduciary duties on the Single Member in making its decisions<u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">- the engineering principle of minimal change at a time<u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">Focusing on the overarching concern, it was a tenet of the CCWG's Second Draft Proposal that the CMSM should be largely ruled out from exercising any of the powers the community
didn't propose it had. <u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">That is, aside from the five community powers and the ability to enforce the bylaws against the Board, the other powers the California law grants to member/s (document inspection,
dissolve the company, etc), should face such high thresholds to action that they can, practically speaking, never be actioned at all.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">[The Second Draft Proposal may not have been terribly clear about this, but that's what it was driving at.]<u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">So how to resolve this? The CCWG's choice of a Single Member (following its earlier choice of multiple members) was to meet the accountability requirements the community has asked
for. But nobody asked for the community to have these other powers.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="color:black;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">Here is a suggestion.</span></b><span style="color:black;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="color:black;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">For the exercise of any of the Member Powers the CMSM would have (beyond those we "want" it to have), why don't we include the ICANN Board as one of the groups that has to vote
/ come to consensus to exercise them?</span></b><span style="color:black;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">This sounds a little strange on the face of it but think it through.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">This seems to me to be a very simple way to avoid the problem.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">It acknowledges that the rights of the Member are set out in law and can't be eroded - that they can only be managed by the decisions that member is able to take. And it acknowledges
that the concerns about constraining the possible actions of the member to those that are intended, should be solved. It shares power in the model in quite a nice, dare-I-say-it, "multistakeholder" way.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">I'd welcome others' thoughts. I'd welcome views from our lawyers about this, too. On the face of it I can't see any reason this wouldn't work in law, since the CMSM can be comprised
of any set of ICANN actors. But - I Am Not A Lawyer.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">cheers<u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">Jordan<u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">--
<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">Jordan Carter<br>
<br>
Chief Executive <br>
<b>InternetNZ</b><u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><br>
<a href="tel:%2B64-4-495-2118" value="+6444952118" target="_blank">+64-4-495-2118</a> (office) | <a href="tel:%2B64-21-442-649" value="+6421442649" target="_blank">+64-21-442-649</a> (mob)<br>
Email: <a href="mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz" target="_blank"><span style="color:rgb(17,85,204)">jordan@internetnz.net.nz</span></a> <br>
Skype: jordancarter<u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">Web:
<a href="http://www.internetnz.nz" target="_blank">www.internetnz.nz</a> <u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><br>
<i>A better world through a better Internet </i><u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div></div></div>
</div>
<br></div></div><span>_______________________________________________<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" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a><br>
<br></span></blockquote></div><br></div>
</blockquote></div><br></div>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><div><br></div>-- <br><div class="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr" style="font-size:small">Jordan Carter<br><br>Chief Executive <br><b>InternetNZ</b><br></div><div dir="ltr" style="font-size:small"><br>+64-4-495-2118 (office) | +64-21-442-649 (mob)<br>Email: <a href="mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz" style="color:rgb(17,85,204)" target="_blank">jordan@internetnz.net.nz</a> <br>Skype: jordancarter<br></div><div style="font-size:small">Web: <a href="http://www.internetnz.nz" target="_blank">www.internetnz.nz</a> </div><div dir="ltr" style="font-size:small"><br><i>A better world through a better Internet </i></div><br></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div>
</div>