[Acct-Legal] Fwd: [CCWG-ACCT] Accountability questions to law firms

[Greg Shatan]

Second email in thread.

Greg
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Dr Eberhard Lisse <el at lisse.na>
Date: Tue, Apr 7, 2015 at 11:04 AM
Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Accountability questions to law firms
To: pedro.ivo at itamaraty.gov.br, accountability-cross-community at icann.org


Interesting questions, but, choice of venue lies with the plaintiff,
hence Californian law does not necessarily apply, can be any other State
where ICANN has a presence, if I am not mistaken.

>From an accountability perspective nobody claiming immunity for
his/her actions can serve in a function where this might become an
issue, as far as I am concerned.

I really do not understand the last question (in particular the
internalization part).  Never mind that

        Conflict of laws or Private international law (both terms
        are used interchangeably) concerns relations across
        different legal jurisdictions between persons, and sometimes
        also companies, corporations and other legal entities.

This is from the very interesting article at

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conflict_of_laws

el



On 2015-04-07 15:41, Pedro Ivo Ferraz da Silva wrote:
> Dear CCWG-colleagues,
>
>
>
> Please find below a group of questions to be posed to the law firms
> assisting the CCWG-Accountability.
>
>
>
> · Are there any restrictions in California law or in applicable
> federal US-law with respect to government officials (US or
> foreign) becoming statutory members (or designators) of a
> non-profit organization?  Would all liabilities applied to US or
> foreign citizens in a membership (or designator) structure equally
> apply to a government official which has legal immunity and
> privileges in the United States?
>
>
>
> · What are the specific legal requirements for a third-party
> which may have approval or veto rights over board decisions and
> what are its liabilities?
>
>
>
> · A community veto (be it exercised in a membership or a
> designator structure) over a bylaw change could be potentially
> reverted through a court decision in California?  Same question
> applies to a decision made by an Independent Appeals Panel
> mechanism.
>
>
>
> · The fact that the "board bears ultimate responsibility for
> corporate decisions and must provide oversight of the exercise of
> those powers it has delegated" (Sidley Austin LLP, Initial
> Discussion Draft 1, p.  3) implies that the board may eventually
> revert a community veto (member or designator structure) over its
> own decision or over the budget it has originally approved?
>
>
>
> · Is the Californian Attorney General able to intervene in
> ICANN's operations upon the complaint of a government (US or
> other)?  How does this situation relate to norms of international
> private law internalized by the United States?
>
>
>
> Thanks in advance,
>
>
>
> Secretário Pedro Ivo Ferraz da Silva
>
[...]
--
Dr. Eberhard W. Lisse  \        / Obstetrician & Gynaecologist (Saar)
el at lisse.NA            / *     |   Telephone: +264 81 124 6733 (cell)
PO Box 8421             \     /
Bachbrecht, Namibia     ;____/
_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community



-- 

*Gregory S. Shatan **ï* *Abelman Frayne & Schwab*

*Partner* *| IP | Technology | Media | Internet*

*666 Third Avenue | New York, NY 10017-5621*

*Direct*  212-885-9253 *| **Main* 212-949-9022

*Fax*  212-949-9190 *|* *Cell *917-816-6428

*gsshatan at lawabel.com <gsshatan at lawabel.com>*

*ICANN-related: gregshatanipc at gmail.com <gregshatanipc at gmail.com>*

*www.lawabel.com <http://www.lawabel.com/>*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ccwg-accountability5/attachments/20150407/7be71c33/attachment-0001.html>