[Acct-Legal] Legal issues raised -- 23-24 March

[León Felipe Sánchez Ambía]

Dear Athina,

Thank you very much for this excellent summary on the legal issues raised during our Istanbul meeting.

I suggest we go through all and see if they are already addressed in the initial document drafted by Robin or if there are some items that might still be missing.

While we do that, initial advice may come in so I also suggest we wait to hear from the lawyers before putting more questions upon them as some might be already answered in their first approach.

All, as Athina said, please feel free to add any other questions or issues to the list.

Best regards,


León

> El 25/03/2015, a las 19:37, Athina Fragkouli <athina.fragkouli at ripe.net> escribió:
> 
> Dear all,
> 
> Here is a list of the legal issues I noted being raised during our
> two-day meeting:
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> - Are there any already existing mechanisms to remove the Board within a
> non-profit cooperation structure and within the current structure of ICANN?
> 
> - What is the minimum Board size and composition required under
> California law?
> 
> - Would Board members that served on spilled Board be ineligible?
> 
> - Is it allowed under California Law to dismiss the whole Board?
> 
> - What kind of liability does the organisation without a Board carry? -
> What are the risks? Would a two-tier Board (acting as a "back up" board)
> be a possible solution?
> 
> - Is it possible to have the Board removed without cause?
> 
> - How binding could decisions of the Independent Review Panel be?
> 
> - Is it possible for ICANN to use different jurisdictions in order to
> govern different contract for its areas of work?
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Additionally the following proposals have been endorsed:
> 
> - The lawyers should receive the WP 1 Mechanisms Comparison Table in
> order to confirm our understanding of the mechanisms and as a guidance
> for their analysis.
> 
> - The lawyers should review our mechanism templates.
> 
> - In cases where our accountability requirements cannot be implemented
> due to limitations to the US California jurisdiction, this needs to be
> highlighted in their legal analysis.
> 
> --------------
> 
> Please feel free to add any questions I missed.
> 
> Kind regards,
> Athina Fragkouli
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Ccwg-accountability5 mailing list
> Ccwg-accountability5 at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-accountability5