[ST-WP] Legal advice request for clarification

[Cheryl Langdon-Orr]

Sorry I was a day ahead of myself  ST-WP call  is in fact my tomorrow  not
today  so little point in further delay (although we do seem to have
'burned 6 days on this already *sigh*'  However see some points  from me
now interspaced below *<CLO> I  also trust Steve, Jonathan and anyone else
from the ST-WP  will now comment as well ...*


*Cheryl Langdon-O**rr ...  *(CLO)

about.me/cheryl.LangdonOrr
[image: Cheryl Langdon-Orr on about.me]
  <http://about.me/cheryl.LangdonOrr>


On 14 April 2015 at 15:28, Cheryl Langdon-Orr <langdonorr at gmail.com> wrote:

> Thank you for this follow up Leon,   As the ST-WP has its weekly meeting
> in a few hours and this matter was arising from our last call, at this
> stage I propose that I will put these question  clarification matters
> before the WP and get back to you after our call...
>
> But as to the proposed forwarding of the v9 doc as part of the
> prep/background materials for the Legal Advisers goes,  I would certainly
> say yes to that...
>
>
> *Cheryl Langdon-O**rr ...  *(CLO)
>
> about.me/cheryl.LangdonOrr
> [image: Cheryl Langdon-Orr on about.me]
>   <http://about.me/cheryl.LangdonOrr>
>
>
> On 14 April 2015 at 13:25, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <
> leonfelipe at sanchez.mx> wrote:
>
>> Dear Cheryl and Steve (ladies first, of course),
>>
>> We have received a request from staff to ask questions to the external
>> legal advisors regarding some of the work of the stress test work party.
>> Staff's comment was:
>>
>> "The stress-test work party is asking for external legal advice on
>> mechanisms/community powers to 'remedy' Board inaction.  Specifically
>> whether, for example, if consensus advice from an AC is not acted on by
>> the Board might this 'trigger' a mechanism?
>>
>> ST-WP particularly asks if the external legal advisory could review
>> Stress test 17, and provided an MP3 clip of the relevant part of
>> discussions of their last call, and supporting email from Jonathan Zuck."
>>
>> If staff's comments are a fair reflection of your request, could you
>> formulate these into questions we can put to lawyers?
>>
> ​
*<CLO> ​The request outlined by staff (as an AI from the CCWG Prep Call
held immediately after last week's ST-WP Call where I initially raised the
matter as an outcome from our WP  knowing that late​*
​r *after the debrief/prep call the Legal ST was meeting, and I had been
asked to give  the St a 'heads up on the matter as well)  is a fair
reflection, and we had corresponded with staff on this as well...*

>
>> Some suggested wording for the questions could be along “Considering the
>> different mechanisms that have already been analyzed: Which would be the
>> requisites to trigger community action against Board inaction? Do this
>> requisites or situations need to be specified in some document i.e.
>> bylaws?” I would welcome your feedback on this suggested wording.
>>
>> ​
*<CLO> ​I'm OK with that wording ( to be honest I am more concerned that a
question gets asked so we might get some feedback in a timely manner,  than
I am the exact text of the question to be framed, as surely the intent of
our enquiry would be fairly clear from the supplied reference material as
much as it would be from "the Question(s) " ​*
​

​* But I am no lawyer ;-) *

> Would you also like us to forward the document "Applying Stress Tests
>> [Draft v9]"
>> https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/ST-WP+Draft+Documents to
>> the laywers to have read in anticipation of future questions from the
>> ST-WP?
>>
>> ​
*<CLO> ​ as previously stated... Yes I think this would be useful...​*
​


> Best regards,
>>
>>
>> León
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Ccwg-accountability4 mailing list
>> Ccwg-accountability4 at icann.org
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-accountability4
>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ccwg-accountability4/attachments/20150414/fd363ea5/attachment-0001.html>