<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<font face="Verdana">The group, unfortunately, as ever is diving
thick into dealing with </font>the details and legalese when the
real issue and contestation is a larger political one.<br>
<br>
First of all, and this I accept is bit of a de tour, though for me a
preface to the main point: a global governance body like the ICANN
should be a public body under public law and not a private body.
That is the main anomaly here, whose implications have been evident
throughout the process, but which key issue we have simply bypassed.
As a 'global' governance body it should of course be incorporated in
international law, which most developing countries have demanded,
but that has been given no consideration. In any case, as the second
best option, pending a shift to the appropriate international
jurisdiction, in fact, I have begun to think that, I may prefer it
to be incorporated under an appropriate US statute with sufficient
safeguards, and means of global representation in constituting ICANN
and holding it accountable. Those who think this will put it 'back'
under US oversight should understand that right now the same US
legislature can at any time make any kind of law establishing any
kind of authority over ICANN and its work, in its US non profit
status. In fact, a well done statute could include better safeguards
and clearer processes to make such interference more rather than
less difficult. In any case, things no way become worse vis a vis
the authority of the state of the US on ICANN if such a statutory
incorporation route is employed - while it affirms the basic
important political point that 'governance is a public function',
and not a matter of private contracts, which the ICANN model is all
about, and which for me its biggest negative contribution to our
political thinking and landscape as we go forward. It then gets
pushed into larger governance of Internet relates issues, and then
to governance overall, of all issues and areas (in fact the latter
strategic plan is mentioned in as many words in a World Economic
Forum document). This is the route to a neoliberal privatisation of
governance and political systems that this exercise is centrally
contributing to which is my greatest problem with it. <br>
<br>
Coming back to the current point, now even if for whatever reasons
we are decided on a private body status for ICANN, if non profit,
the key and the prior issue we face is to choose between two forms,
a Board-based private body or a membership-based one. Obviously, it
is the latter which is relatively 'more public' than the former,
which is clearly 'more private'. So, the choice should obviously be
of a 'membership based body'. But then we see fears being expressed
that members can go rouge (as if board members cannot, which would
be so much more calamitous) or that members can wrongly capture
power... The way forward then should be to improve the membership
structure of ICANN, in one go or progressively, rather than succumb
to the 'fear of the public' which most entities or people exercising
unaccountable political power normally do. This is what I see
happening here as well. (Yes, 'public' can be sometimes messy!) <br>
<br>
What I would see to be the proper course at this stage is to first
- clearly and firmly - decide whether a Board mode is better or a
Membership model, and if the latter, which I really see is
preponderantly the view, go for it, and thrash out what kind of
membership model best serve the needs of the context. It is no one's
case that a membership model is impossible here, or the costs and/
or dangers of it are so expressly huge to be able to largely negate
the logic of the higher political choice I spoke about earlier
('political' as in systems and institutions concerned with location,
flow and distribution of power). Rather than taking this obvious
and straightforward route, one is seeing various kinds of matters of
detail, legalese and, sorry but, even trivia being thrown around, on
the basis of which then some 'decision' , or is it 'consensus', will
be arrived at, which by default decides the larger and higher
political question - without ever actually addressing it. This, as I
have critiqued before, has always been the primary and in my view
the fatal flaw with the process, which no amount of legal advice,
and discussions about the finer points of corporate governance, is
ever going to cover up. <br>
<br>
And then of course there are no prizes for guessing what would be
the nature of the final decision or model -- it will firmly lie
within the rather narrow confines of what has rather bluntly been
stated to be acceptable by the Board, and also the US government,
which keeps making all the soft but powerful noises about giving
them a model with least amount of change or possible confusion. <br>
<br>
It is made no better if some people who have been entrusted with,
what is that rather fashionable word here, is it a, 'fiduciary duty'
by the global Internet community to come up with an ICANN oversight
model that best upholds global public interest, openly admit that
there is no point in coming up with a model that is not to the taste
of the ICANN and the US gov and therefore they would/ may not do so.
Dont they know that whatever they present will be called as a
community consensus model arrived at through a long transparent and
participatory process, inclusive of the global community. Behold,
democracy has triumphed!! History is written by the powerful. There
will be no footnote anywhere that the model was presented because it
was all that ICANN and the US was ready to accept. (Btw, a question,
is CCWG meaning to append such a footnote to its final proposal,
just for the sake of transparency and full disclosure?). <br>
<br>
No personal affront to anyone intended, but this process in my view
has at this point sunk too low to be worthy of participation. But
then I work with people whose interests are affected by what gets
done here, and that gives me the justification to state my
dissatisfaction and disappointment. And this process is being
carried out in the name of all these people.<br>
<br>
parminder <br>
<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On Monday 05 October 2015 11:44 AM, <a
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch">Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch</a>
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:AB0B03BAA04C59408DBA5398AFB3B520A09E69@SB00108A.adb.intra.admin.ch"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (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:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Consolas;
panose-1:2 11 6 9 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Verdana;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0cm;
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
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0cm;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0cm;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;}
pre
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"HTML Vorformatiert Zchn";
margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Courier New";}
span.hoenzb
{mso-style-name:hoenzb;}
span.HTMLVorformatiertZchn
{mso-style-name:"HTML Vorformatiert Zchn";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"HTML Vorformatiert";
font-family:Consolas;}
span.E-MailFormatvorlage21
{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:612.0pt 792.0pt;
margin:70.85pt 70.85pt 2.0cm 70.85pt;}
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"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US"
lang="EN-US">Dear Co-Chairs,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US"
lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US"
lang="EN-US">May you please kindly confirm that this
question will be certified to our lawyers?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US"
lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US"
lang="EN-US">Thanks and best regards<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US"
lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US"
lang="EN-US">Jorge <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US"
lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1
1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0cm 0cm 0cm">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"
lang="DE">Von:</span></b><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"
lang="DE"> Cancio Jorge BAKOM <br>
<b>Gesendet:</b> Freitag, 2. Oktober 2015 17:02<br>
<b>An:</b> Greg Shatan <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com"><gregshatanipc@gmail.com></a><br>
<b>Cc:</b> Mathieu Weill <a
class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="mailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr"><Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr></a>;
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org">accountability-cross-community@icann.org</a>;
Thomas Rickert <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="mailto:thomas@rickert.net"><thomas@rickert.net></a><br>
<b>Betreff:</b> Re: [CCWG-ACCT] question on fiduciary
duties and their objectivity<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">I feel Greg captures and explains (much
more eloquently) the issues I think we should be clarifying.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Thanks!<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Jorge<br>
<br>
Von meinem iPhone gesendet<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><br>
Am 02.10.2015 um 16:52 schrieb Greg Shatan <<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com">gregshatanipc@gmail.com</a>>:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:9.5pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">I
am quite confident that there are standards
(objective or otherwise) for the definition and
exercise of "fiduciary duty" by directors, both in
the statutes and in case law, as well as in
commentary (i.e., books and articles) and legal
advice. Of course, the advice that the Board has
received over the years in applying "fiduciary
duty" as an ICANN Board member almost certainly
takes a particular view of the legal standards and
their application. Our counsel may well take a
different view. We should get our counsel's view
(and if possible, our counsel's view on ICANN's
counsel's view). <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:9.5pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:9.5pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">As
a general matter, Boards are bound to to make all
their decisions consistent with their fiduciary
duties. This does not need to be set out in any
document. It's a legal duty. Our issues don't
focus on this overall exercise of fiduciary duty;
rather, I think our primary concern is when the
Board invokes fiduciary duty as a reason not to
accept the recommendations, advice or decisions of
the community or any part thereof.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:9.5pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:9.5pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">After
that comes the question of whether and how to bind
the ICANN Board to specific and explicit standards
or interpretations for fiduciary duty, rather than
relying on an unstated interpretation based on the
advice of counsel.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:9.5pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:9.5pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">Then
comes the questions of whether the Bylaws can
include any specific requirements (e.g., extended
rationale, supermajority) when the Board goes
against the decisions of the Community and does so
based on "fiduciary duty."<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:9.5pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:9.5pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">After
that comes the question of whether the Board's
exercise of fiduciary duty can be challenged in
RfR, IAP, MEM, etc. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:9.5pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:9.5pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">Finally,
the question comes whether this challenge would be
significantly different if brought by the Sole
Member vs. any other entity.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:9.5pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:9.5pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">I
don't believe "enforceability" hinges primarily on
whether there are explicit standards for fiduciary
duty set forth in the bylaws. As noted above, it
is an inherent duty. If a Board violates its
fiduciary duty, a party with standing (i.e.,
affected by the outcome) and the capacity to sue
(i.e., legal personhood) can challenge that in
court. However, explicit standards may make
"enforceability" easier, since the complainant
could point to specific bylaws that have been
violated, rather than challenging the board's
interpretation of fiduciary duty. Since there are
a range of interpretations of fiduciary duty, and
the Board has broad (but not boundless) discretion
to interpret fiduciary duty, it becomes more
difficult to challenge -- but not impossible,
since some actions objectively violate fiduciary
duty based on existing legal standards (e.g., if
the Board exhausts its reserve fund to pay for
trip to Las Vegas, any claim that this is
consistent with their fiduciary duty is likely to
fail).<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:9.5pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:9.5pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">I
hope this helps inform the questions we need to
ask counsel in this situation.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:9.5pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:9.5pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:9.5pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">There
is also a second question arising from Jorge's
email, which is: What are the duties and
obligations that must be considered when the <u>membership</u>
makes a decision. Are the decisions of membership
(in a California public benefit corp.) utterly
arbitrary and without regard to any standard, or
are they limited by some legal standards or
duties? If so, what are those standards and
duties? If there is no legal standard for member's
decisions, how can these decision-making powers be
constrained, e.g., in the Articles/Bylaws of the
corporation, and what standards and mechanisms
would typically be used to do so? This should be
explored as well.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:9.5pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:9.5pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">Greg<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<div id=":1dw">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:9.5pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"><img
moz-do-not-send="true" id="_x0000_i1025"
src="https://ssl.gstatic.com/ui/v1/icons/mail/images/cleardot.gif"
border="0"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 10:25 AM,
Mathieu Weill <<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr" target="_blank">mathieu.weill@afnic.fr</a>>
wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote style="border:none;border-left:solid #CCCCCC
1.0pt;padding:0cm 0cm 0cm
6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-right:0cm">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Hi Jorge, <br>
<br>
Thanks for providing these additional thoughts and
refinements. The way I read these is that you are
not only looking for clarity of what fiduciary
duties imply, but also on potentialoptions to make
them enforceable (by specifying them in the
Bylaws, etc.) ? <br>
<br>
This is certainly an aspect we need to clarify . <br>
<br>
Best<span style="color:#888888"><br>
<span class="hoenzb">Mathieu</span></span><o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
<br>
Le 02/10/2015 11:43, <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch"
target="_blank"> Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch</a>
a écrit :<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote
style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
lang="EN-US">Hi Mathieu,</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
lang="EN-US"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
lang="EN-US">After reviewing the legal
memo you just sent and what it says
about fiduciary duties, I feel that the
question Im presenting is not tackled
in that Memo and that we still would
largely benefit right now from a better
understanding of the question I was
proposing.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
lang="EN-US"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
lang="EN-US">Ive tried to specify the
question a bit more, and it would look
as follows:</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
lang="EN-US"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
lang="EN-US">Is there any means under
Californian Law that would allow to
subject the exercise of fiduciary duties
to objective and controllable standards?
For example, could the following or
similar means be acceptable and usable
under Californian law:</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p style="margin-left:36.0pt"><span
style="font-family:Symbol" lang="EN-US">·</span><span
style="font-size:7.0pt" lang="EN-US">
</span><span lang="EN-US">concretizing
these fiduciary duties in the Bylaws;</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p style="margin-left:36.0pt"><span
style="font-family:Symbol" lang="EN-US">·</span><span
style="font-size:7.0pt" lang="EN-US">
</span><span lang="EN-US">subjecting their
correct interpretation to arbitration;</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p style="margin-left:36.0pt"><span
style="font-family:Symbol" lang="EN-US">·</span><span
style="font-size:7.0pt" lang="EN-US">
</span><span lang="EN-US">imposing special
requirements on the rationale needed to
be provided if they are used to override
community decisions;</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p style="margin-left:36.0pt"><span
style="font-family:Symbol" lang="EN-US">·</span><span
style="font-size:7.0pt" lang="EN-US">
</span><span lang="EN-US">imposing
extra-supermajorities in the Board in
order to being able to invoke such
duties?</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
lang="EN-US"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
lang="EN-US">The underlying idea is IMHO
very relevant to our present discussions
on the Model, especially for those of us
who are not experts in Californian
Corporate Law: i.e. is there a legal
means to subject those fiduciary duties
to specific and objective standards
and/or third-party control? If there
are, could we use those means (if they
exist) to develop our model? If they do
not exist, or are too limited, this
might speak for a membership structure.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
lang="EN-US"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
lang="EN-US">Please let me know if you
can proceed with this.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
lang="EN-US"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">Regards<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;margin-bottom:12.0pt">Jorge<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="color:#1F497D"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid
#E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0cm 0cm 0cm">
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><b><span
lang="DE">Von:</span></b><span
lang="DE"> Mathieu Weill [<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr"
target="_blank">mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr</a>]
<br>
<b>Gesendet:</b> Freitag, 2. Oktober
2015 11:06<br>
<b>An:</b> Cancio Jorge BAKOM <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch"
target="_blank">
<Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch></a>; <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org"
target="_blank">
accountability-cross-community@icann.org</a><br>
<b>Cc:</b> <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx"
target="_blank">leonfelipe@sanchez.mx</a>;
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:thomas@rickert.net"
target="_blank">thomas@rickert.net</a><br>
<b>Betreff:</b> Re: question on
fiduciary duties and their
objectivity</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
lang="EN-US"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;margin-bottom:12.0pt"><span
lang="EN-US">Dear Jorge, <br>
<br>
You are rightly pointing out one of the
key areas where a shared understanding
of the concept and consequences has not
been achieved so far. $<br>
<br>
Our 2nd report highlighted this issue
for further investigation during WS2,
but I note that some comments mentioned
that this should not be clarified as
part of WS1. The exact wording of our
work item was :</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote
style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p style="margin-left:72.0pt"><span
lang="EN-US">o</span><span
style="font-size:7.0pt" lang="EN-US">
</span><span lang="EN-US">Clarifying
understanding of the fiduciary duties
of Board Directors and related
expectations concerning Director
behavior for the Board.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;margin-bottom:12.0pt"><br>
Past work on the topic include several
mentions in legal memos. Most notable is
on page 4 of one of the initial memos from
our Counsel dated 12 april (<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/52890082/Combined%20CCWG%20Cover%20Memo%20and%20Templates.pdf?version=3&modificationDate=1428797461000&api=v2"
target="_blank">https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/52890082/Combined%20CCWG%20Cover%20Memo%20and%20Templates.pdf?version=3&modificationDate=1428797461000&api=v2</a>)
which addresses the balance between
accountability and decision making
authority. <br>
<br>
If we were to pursue this at this stage,
we probably should flesh out some
questions to direct work from our Counsel.
What would be the type of questions you
would raise Jorge ? (or others) ? <br>
<br>
Best<br>
Mathieu<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">Le
01/10/2015 10:41, <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch"
target="_blank">Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch</a>
a écrit :<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<blockquote
style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
lang="EN-US">Dear all,</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
lang="EN-US"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
lang="EN-US">During the debates we had
on the last conference call I put
forward a question which I feel could
be important to better understand
under Californian corporate law.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
lang="EN-US"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
lang="EN-US">This is whether there are
any means to subject the exercise of
fiduciary duties (by the Board) to
objective standards.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
lang="EN-US"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
lang="EN-US">As I have understood the
discussion so far, the membership
model allows the member to override
fiduciary duties of the Board.
However the member itself has no
fiduciary duties vis-à-vis the
organization.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
lang="EN-US"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
lang="EN-US">On the other hand,
fiduciary duties are apparently a
useful tool within corporate law, as
it imposes a duty to care for the
welfare of the whole of the
organization.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
lang="EN-US"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
lang="EN-US">The argument which is
made by some, as far as I understand
it, is that there is however a problem
in the exercise of fiduciary duties
as it would provide the Board with an
arbitrary power, e.g. to override
community decisions (in exercise of
community powers) without being bound
to any objective standards.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
lang="EN-US"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
lang="EN-US">Considering all this, my
question (to the Lawyers, if this is
certified as a question to them) would
be: is there any means under
Californian Law (or other US
jurisdictions
) that would allow to
subject the exercise of fiduciary
duties to objective standards? (e.g.
be it through concretizing these
duties in the Bylaws, subjecting them
to arbitration, imposing special
requirements on the rationale needed
to be provided if they are used to
override community decisions, or, for
instance, imposing
extra-supermajorities in the Board in
order to being able to invoke such
duties?) </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
lang="EN-US"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
lang="EN-US">Hope this helps,</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
lang="EN-US"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
lang="EN-US">Regards</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
lang="EN-US"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
lang="EN-US">Jorge </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;margin-bottom:12.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<pre>-- <o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>*****************************<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>Mathieu WEILL<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>AFNIC - directeur général<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>Tél: <a moz-do-not-send="true" href="tel:%2B33%201%2039%2030%2083%2006" target="_blank">+33 1 39 30 83 06</a><o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre><a moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr" target="_blank">mathieu.weill@afnic.fr</a><o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>Twitter : @mathieuweill<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>*****************************<o:p></o:p></pre>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<pre>-- <o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>*****************************<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>Mathieu WEILL<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>AFNIC - directeur général<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>Tél: <a moz-do-not-send="true" href="tel:%2B33%201%2039%2030%2083%2006" target="_blank">+33 1 39 30 83 06</a><o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre><a moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr" target="_blank">mathieu.weill@afnic.fr</a><o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>Twitter : @mathieuweill<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>*****************************<o:p></o:p></pre>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a><br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community"
target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a><o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>