[AT-Review] Revised WG#4 Draft Recommendations

[Peter Dengate Thrush]

Hi Warren,

On Oct 8, 2010, at 1:26 PM, <wadelman at godaddy.com> <wadelman at godaddy.com> wrote:

> Peter
> 
> I think this suggests that the community has wanted something like this for a very long time. The study you reference did not envisage binding decision-making by the IRP.
True
The legal brains on the IRAC accepted that with a corporation, there is no way that any other body can trump the director's ultimate responsibility under the law for decision making - and that to abrogate that to any other body was in breach of the law.
If you want to change that, you need to look at the corporate nature of the current ICANN.Many have argued  - especially to the PSC - that a not-for-profit Ca. corporation is not the right structure for a global multistakeholder body with ICANN's mission....


> In WG#4s draft there are a number of items on this topic for discussion in Boston.

Excellent!

See you soon

regards


Peter
> 
> Cheers
> 
> Warren
> 
> Warren Adelman
> President & COO
> GoDaddy.com
> warren at godaddy.com
> twitter: http://twitter.com/asocialcontract
> http://www.godaddy.com
> 
> 
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: [AT-Review] Revised WG#4 Draft Recommendations
> From: Peter Dengate Thrush <peter.dengatethrush at icann.org>
> Date: Thu, October 07, 2010 4:10 pm
> To: "<wadelman at godaddy.com>" <wadelman at godaddy.com>
> Cc: "AT-Review " <at-review at icann.org>, "James M. Bladel"
> <jbladel at godaddy.com>, Fiona Alexander <FAlexander at ntia.doc.gov>,
> guo <guofeng at catr.cn>
> 
> Thanks Warren and Team,
> Thanks for this work.
> 
> Although I have mentioned it before, you do not refer specifically to the work that was done in 1999 on this topic, and which I think might be helpful.
> Although that was a study under the old bylaws, you might find the principles and the discussion interesting - if only to record how long this issue has been debated!
> 
> See  www.icann.org/en/meetings/santiago/irac-final-report.htm
> 
> I look forward to working on this in Boston.
> 
> regards
> 
> 
> Peter 
> 
> 
> 
> On Oct 8, 2010, at 6:25 AM, <wadelman at godaddy.com> <wadelman at godaddy.com> wrote:
> 
>> Attached for review and discussion is the latest version of WG#4 draft recommendations.
>> 
>> These recommendations touch on:
>> 
>> -Ombudsman
>> -Reconsideration Request
>> -Community Re-vote
>> -Independent Review Panel
>> 
>> We look forward to discussing in Boston. As a logistical note, I will be participating remotely in the meeting. James Bladel will attend on site.
>> 
>> Thanks
>> 
>> Warren
>> 
>> Warren Adelman
>> President & COO
>> GoDaddy.com
>> warren at godaddy.com
>> twitter: http://twitter.com/asocialcontract
>> http://www.godaddy.com
>> <WG4 Draft Recommendations v4.doc>_______________________________________________
>> AT-Review mailing list
>> AT-Review at icann.org
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-review
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/at-review/attachments/20101008/caaae3f5/attachment.html