<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=Windows-1252">
<style>
<!--
.EmailQuote
{margin-left:1pt;
padding-left:4pt;
border-left:#800000 2px solid}
-->
</style>
</head>
<body>
<div style="font-size:10pt">
<p dir="ltr" style="margin-top:0; margin-bottom:0">I see that the separation process ties this decision to a policy-making process but it is very unclear how that fits in to the exercise of fiduciary duty in the decision. In addition, very unclear where GAC
public policy advice would come in to the PTI separation decision.</p>
<p dir="ltr" style="margin-top:0; margin-bottom:0"><br>
</p>
<p dir="ltr" style="margin-top:0; margin-bottom:0">Mind-boggling...</p>
<p dir="ltr" style="margin-top:0; margin-bottom:0"><br>
</p>
<div id="SignatureBox" dir="ltr" style="margin-top:0; margin-bottom:0; font-size:9pt; font-style:italic">
<p dir="ltr" style="margin-top:0; margin-bottom:0">Sent from my Verizon 4G LTE Tablet</p>
</div>
</div>
<div style="font-size:10pt">
<p dir="auto" style="margin-top:0; margin-bottom:0"><br>
</p>
<p dir="auto" style="margin-top:0; margin-bottom:0">------ Original message------</p>
<p dir="auto" style="margin-top:0; margin-bottom:0"><b>From: </b>Aikman-Scalese, Anne</p>
<p dir="auto" style="margin-top:0; margin-bottom:0"><b>Date: </b>Tue, Oct 20, 2015 1:20 AM</p>
<p dir="auto" style="margin-top:0; margin-bottom:0"><b>To: </b>Bruce Tonkin;CCWG Accountability;</p>
<p dir="auto" style="margin-top:0; margin-bottom:0"><b>Cc: </b></p>
<p dir="auto" style="margin-top:0; margin-bottom:0"><b>Subject:</b>Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Decision making versus comply with the law</p>
<p dir="auto" style="margin-top:0; margin-bottom:0"><br>
</p>
</div>
<div>
<div style="margin-bottom:45px">
<div style="font-size:10pt">
<p dir="ltr" style="margin-top:0; margin-bottom:0">Bruce, these are good points as far as they go, but the 5 enumerated community powers are not about the policy-making process. That process is separate and distinct from the community powers under disccussio.
In addition, what would be binding in arbitration, as I understand it, would be whether the Board violated the Articles , ByLaws, or its fiduciary duties when making the decision . That is not always the same issue as whether the decision is right for the
Community,</p>
<p dir="ltr" style="margin-top:0; margin-bottom:0"><br>
</p>
<p dir="ltr" style="margin-top:0; margin-bottom:0">What we know from experience is that the Directors have a fidciary duty to the corporation itself. As I understand the legal advice, whether that duty was breached is the narrow inquiry in the scope of binding
arbitration in the Sole Designator Model. Therefore, unless the lawyers can find a way to craft Articles that create a fiduciary duty to implement Community decisions as to the 5 powers, or to create some sort of fiduciary duty to the Community in respect
of these 5 powers, the Community may only effectively enforce at the top of the stairway via removal of the Board without requiring cause.</p>
<p dir="ltr" style="margin-top:0; margin-bottom:0"><br>
</p>
<p dir="ltr" style="margin-top:0; margin-bottom:0">It seems to me that removing the entire Board is very unlikely. It would be extremely disruptive. So, for example, in relation to PTI separation, the Board would have to decide, in the exercise of its fiduciary
duty, whether PTI separation would be the best thing for the corporation. In fact it would be bound to do so. That is not likely the same inquiry or analysis the Community would be making. It would be asking a different question, e g is it better for the
global public interest if PTI is separated?</p>
<p dir="ltr" style="margin-top:0; margin-bottom:0"><br>
</p>
<p dir="ltr" style="margin-top:0; margin-bottom:0">This question could create a conflict for the Board in the exercise of its duties.</p>
<p dir="ltr" style="margin-top:0; margin-bottom:0">What if it is better for ICANN the corporation if PTI is not separated but more in the global public interest for the Internet Community if PTI is separated?</p>
<p dir="ltr" style="margin-top:0; margin-bottom:0"><br>
</p>
<p dir="ltr" style="margin-top:0; margin-bottom:0">And is there a way to account for this possible difference in standard for exercise of fiduciary duty by modifying the Articles of Incorporation that would make the Sole Designator Model work more efficiently
at the IRP stage (without having to remove the whole Board) as regards enforcement in relation to this particular issue?</p>
<p dir="ltr" style="margin-top:0; margin-bottom:0"><br>
</p>
<p dir="ltr" style="margin-top:0; margin-bottom:0">Anne</p>
<p dir="ltr" style="margin-top:0; margin-bottom:0">(Not a CA lawyer)</p>
<p dir="ltr" style="margin-top:0; margin-bottom:0"> </p>
<div id="x_SignatureBox" dir="ltr" style="margin-top:0; margin-bottom:0; font-size:9pt; font-style:italic">
<p dir="ltr" style="margin-top:0; margin-bottom:0">Sent from my Verizon 4G LTE Tablet</p>
</div>
</div>
<div style="font-size:10pt">
<p dir="auto" style="margin-top:0; margin-bottom:0"><br>
</p>
<p dir="auto" style="margin-top:0; margin-bottom:0">------ Original message------</p>
<p dir="auto" style="margin-top:0; margin-bottom:0"><b>From: </b>Bruce Tonkin</p>
<p dir="auto" style="margin-top:0; margin-bottom:0"><b>Date: </b>Mon, Oct 19, 2015 1:48 PM</p>
<p dir="auto" style="margin-top:0; margin-bottom:0"><b>To: </b>CCWG Accountability;</p>
<p dir="auto" style="margin-top:0; margin-bottom:0"><b>Cc: </b></p>
<p dir="auto" style="margin-top:0; margin-bottom:0"><b>Subject:</b>[CCWG-ACCT] Decision making versus comply with the law</p>
<p dir="auto" style="margin-top:0; margin-bottom:0"><br>
</p>
</div>
</div>
<font size="2"><span style="font-size:10pt">
<div class="PlainText">Just to reiterate my comments.<br>
<br>
(1) Obeying the law<br>
<br>
- the Board must obey the law - whether it is national laws or our bylaws<br>
<br>
- we have an IRP process for the community to use if we break our bylaws<br>
<br>
- the outcome of the IRP will be binding, and will be enforceable in court<br>
<br>
- which again comes back to obeying the law<br>
<br>
<br>
(2) Decision making<br>
<br>
- we have a shared decision making process in the bylaws<br>
<br>
- the SOs and cross-community working groups make policy recommendations to the Board<br>
<br>
- the board can make a decision by 2/3 majority to reject such recommendations - which hasn't happened since ICANN started 16 years ago<br>
<br>
- for bylaws changes and separation etc - both the Board and the community must decide<br>
<br>
- if you don't think the Board makes good decisions then<br>
<br>
- elect/appoint better directors<br>
<br>
- every year you have the opportunity to replace 1/3 of directors<br>
<br>
- with both the designator and member models you can remove individual board members and the whole board at any time<br>
<br>
<br>
Regards,<br>
Bruce Tonkin<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list<br>
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a><br>
<br>
</div>
</span></font></div>
<br>
<hr>
<font face="Arial" color="Gray" size="1"><br>
This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message
or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying
to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521.
<br>
</font>
</body>
</html>