<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 15 (filtered medium)"><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;}
/* 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;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:#1F497D;}
.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]--></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'>Dear Jordan/Desiree/Others<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 regret, of course, not being in Dublin with you – especially since Mathieu and Lise are buying the first round this evening at the pub.<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'>Had I been there, and had I been able to join your enforcement meeting there is one question I would have asked relating to our efforts to distinguish the Member and Designator models, viz: My understanding is that the Member of a corporation has certain statutory rights of inspection that would, if invoked, require the corporation to be more transparent. In particular, the right of inspection, as I understand it, extends to a right to inspect financial records of the corporation and to demand public access to the minutes of Board meetings. My further understanding is that these statutory rights are NOT available in the Designator model.<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'>Assuming my understanding is correct (and I am more than happy to be corrected), what was the reasoning behind the argument for giving up these inspection rights? To my mind they would be essential components of transparency and part of the key to maintaining good community insight into the operations of the corporation. And that, in turn, seems to me a strong argument for the Membership model. I’m not sure I see what the counter-argument is.<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'>Regards<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>Paul<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'>Paul Rosenzweig<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'><a href="mailto:paul.rosenzweigesq@redbranchconsulting.com"><span style='color:#0563C1'>paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com</span></a> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>O: +1 (202) 547-0660<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>M: +1 (202) 329-9650<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-align:justify'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'><a href="http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=19&Itemid=9"><span style='color:#0563C1'>Link to my PGP Key</span></a><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:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>From:</span></b><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'> Jordan Carter [mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz] <br><b>Sent:</b> Saturday, October 17, 2015 9:25 AM<br><b>To:</b> Desiree Miloshevic <dmiloshevic@afilias.info><br><b>Cc:</b> Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org><br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Summary words from engagement meeting<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal>Thanks Desiree - copying to list for the record and to share your thoughts.<o:p></o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal>J<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal>On 17 October 2015 at 12:19, Desiree Miloshevic <<a href="mailto:dmiloshevic@afilias.info" target="_blank">dmiloshevic@afilias.info</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p><blockquote style='border:none;border-left:solid #CCCCCC 1.0pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-right:0in'><div><p class=MsoNormal>Jordan <o:p></o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Myself, like Malcolm has said, have come out of our Enforcement model breakout session thinking that in the end there is not a huge advantage of the Sole Membership model<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>over the Single Designator Model.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>However, we should explore other opportunities. For example we have not discussed enough the indirect Enforcement - the spill of the board<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>as that may end up being a faster and more efficient way than court proceedings, that would, in the end, keep deciding if something is<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>a fiduciary duty or not regardless of potentially reserved membership statutory powers and regardless of what the board suggests.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Desiree<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>--<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal>On 17 Oct 2015, at 12:00, Jordan Carter <<a href="mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz" target="_blank">jordan@internetnz.net.nz</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div></div><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Here are my notes as outlined at the meeting, for the record:<o:p></o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:13.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#1A1A1A'>1. We focused on IRP, because PTI would end up in an IRP.</span><o:p></o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:13.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#1A1A1A'> </span><o:p></o:p></p></div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:13.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#1A1A1A'>2. IRP enforcement process is the same regardless of the model. If after arbitration award is granted, losing party objects, prevailing party must go to court for enforcement of arbitration award</span><o:p></o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:13.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#1A1A1A'> </span><o:p></o:p></p></div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:13.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#1A1A1A'>3. In both models there is a legal person - the sole designator or member - that can be party to IRP if required.</span><o:p></o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:13.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#1A1A1A'> </span><o:p></o:p></p></div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:13.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#1A1A1A'>4. In either model, fiduciary duties are important and have the effect of limiting the scope of what can be arbitrated in an IRP setting.</span><o:p></o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:13.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#1A1A1A'> </span><o:p></o:p></p></div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:13.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#1A1A1A'>5. In the member model the board is limited in asserting that its action was protected as a fiduciary business judgment as to community powers reserved to the sole member. (That is, the scope of issues properly subject to arbitration is therefore broader in member model.)</span><o:p></o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:13.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#1A1A1A'> </span><o:p></o:p></p></div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:13.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#1A1A1A'>6. Preferences were split among those present between the two models.</span><o:p></o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:13.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#1A1A1A'> </span><o:p></o:p></p></div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:13.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#1A1A1A'>7. My personal preference on this dimension angles slightly towards the member model, because it provides for stronger enforceability of the community powers through the IRP or generally - that is, as said, it does that by removing the possibility of ICANN arguing that enforcement of those powers conflicts with fiduciary duties and so cannot be arbitrated.</span><o:p></o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><p class=MsoNormal>-- <o:p></o:p></p><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Jordan Carter<br><br>Chief Executive <br><b>InternetNZ</b><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><br><a href="tel:%2B64-4-495-2118" target="_blank">+64-4-495-2118</a> (office) | <a href="tel:%2B64-21-442-649" target="_blank">+64-21-442-649</a> (mob)<br>Email: <a href="mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz" target="_blank"><span style='color:#1155CC'>jordan@internetnz.net.nz</span></a> <br>Skype: jordancarter<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Web: <a href="http://www.internetnz.nz/" target="_blank">www.internetnz.nz</a> <o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><br><i>A better world through a better Internet </i><o:p></o:p></p></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div><p class=MsoNormal>_______________________________________________<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" 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><p class=MsoNormal><br><br clear=all><o:p></o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><p class=MsoNormal>-- <o:p></o:p></p><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Jordan Carter<br><br>Chief Executive <br><b>InternetNZ</b><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><br>+64-4-495-2118 (office) | +64-21-442-649 (mob)<br>Email: <a href="mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz" target="_blank"><span style='color:#1155CC'>jordan@internetnz.net.nz</span></a> <br>Skype: jordancarter<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Web: <a href="http://www.internetnz.nz" target="_blank">www.internetnz.nz</a> <o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><br><i>A better world through a better Internet </i><o:p></o:p></p></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></body></html>