<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 12 (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;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
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;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;}
@page WordSection1
{size:612.0pt 792.0pt;
margin:72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt;}
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-GB" link="blue" vlink="purple">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Thank you Jordan: that’s a helpful summary! (And my apologies for not joining you this morning.)<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">Am I reading correctly that neither of the two models was seen as unworkable, but that neither would get good consensus? (And I took from 7 that while you
would prefer the SMM approach, you could live with sole designator (subject, I assume, to some safeguards) – is that correct?)<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">Thanks<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">Martin<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 style="border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0cm 0cm 0cm">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"">From:</span></b><span lang="EN-US" 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>Jordan Carter<br>
<b>Sent:</b> 17 October 2015 12:00<br>
<b>To:</b> Accountability Cross Community<br>
<b>Subject:</b> [CCWG-ACCT] Summary words from engagement meeting<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Here are my notes as outlined at the meeting, for the record:<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" 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>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span lang="EN-US" 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>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span lang="EN-US" 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>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span lang="EN-US" 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>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span lang="EN-US" 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>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span lang="EN-US" 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>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span lang="EN-US" 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>
<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>