<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 14 (filtered medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p.MsoAcetate, li.MsoAcetate, div.MsoAcetate
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Balloon Text Char";
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:8.0pt;
font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
span.BalloonTextChar
{mso-style-name:"Balloon Text Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Balloon Text";
font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">Thank you Robin, Izumi, and Greg:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif""><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">I understand Robin’s point about deleting the last sentence of the headquarters paragraph in Section 4 (on page 17 in my draft so I won’t mention pages, just sections).<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif""><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">But that sentence makes the point (at least to some degree) that ICANN is likely subject to jurisdiction for lawsuits around the world (i.e. the language, “to be held responsible
in a court of proper jurisdiction for its dealings with the global community”). So I suggest not striking it altogether – how about this alternative:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif""><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><i><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">“Except to the extent of applicable and enforceable contract waivers, ICANN can sue and be sued for its actions and be held responsible in a court of proper jurisdiction
for its dealings with the global community.”<o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif""></span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif""><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">I also can see Robin’s point about the final three paragraphs in section 4 sounding almost as if PR announcements. But they do exist to some degree, even if there are some
serious flaws (I say that because I see serious flaws in DIDP exceptions, among other things).
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif""><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">Why not have one bullet
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif""><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><i><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">“Other Mechanisms (Note – as with some others, differences of opinion exist over the usefulness of these mechanisms which will be addressed in Work Stream Two)”</span></i></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif""><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">– and then simply leave the three as is as sub-bullets.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif""><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">With respect to editing section 6.6.1.1 d) 4 to add “<b><i>under California law</i></b>” I would prefer instead to see such a reference in the heading in 6.6.1.1 d)., changing
the final sentence to read: <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif""><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">“</span></i><i><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">The Reference Mechanism
<b>would exist pursuant to California law (as would other mechanisms considered) and</b> would have the following key characteristics:”<o:p></o:p></span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif""><o:p> </o:p></span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">I see that suggested edits to 6.6.1.1 f) are in part a focus of our call today.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">David McAuley<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif""> ccwg-accountability5-bounces@icann.org [mailto:ccwg-accountability5-bounces@icann.org]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>List for the work of CCWG-Accountability Legal SubTeam<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Wednesday, April 29, 2015 8:24 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> ccwg-accountability5@icann.org<br>
<b>Subject:</b> [Acct-Legal] Fwd: [CCWG-ACCT] Suggested text for designaor model<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt">Fyi.<br>
<br>
---------- Forwarded message ----------<br>
From: <b>Izumi Okutani</b> <<a href="mailto:izumi@nic.ad.jp">izumi@nic.ad.jp</a>><br>
Date: Wednesday, April 29, 2015<br>
Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] Suggested text for designaor model<br>
To: <a href="mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org">accountability-cross-community@icann.org</a><br>
<br>
<br>
I see Robin has suggested text for this part.<br>
I support this text, so rather than for the group to review two different texts, it would be good if anyone who has comments could comment on this text. Thanks.<br>
<br>
---<br>
p. 52 edit (f) as follows:<br>
"Designators are a construct in California law that can achieve reliable enforcement of 4 of the 6 community powers sought, specifically with respect to community approval or blocking of changes of bylaws and the selection and removal of board members. There
is concern however, regarding the ease and reliability with which the other 2 community powers sought (approval of budget and strategic plan) can be enforced once created under the designator model, according to legal counsel. Legal counsel further advises
that the SOs and ACs organize themselves into unincorporated associations in both corporate governance models, whether a designator or membership structure."<br>
---<br>
<br>
Izumi<br>
<br>
On 2015/04/29 5:13, Izumi Okutani wrote:<br>
> Dear all,<br>
><br>
><br>
> As mentioned at the # 30 CCWG call, I'd like to suggest text changes for 6.6.1.1 f).<br>
><br>
><br>
> 6.6.1.1 The Community Mechanism: Reference<br>
> Mechanism<br>
><br>
> CURRENT TEXT<br>
> Designators are a construct in California law that can achieve some of the powers proposed below
<span style="font-family:"Cambria Math","serif"">‐</span><br>
> mainly those regarding the selection and removal of Board members and the approval or blocking of<br>
> changes to bylaws. But they cannot reliably deliver other aspects of the set of powers the CCWG<br>
> believes the community needs, if it is to fully hold ICANN to account. Crucially, in the view of our<br>
> counsel, this would also oblige the SOs and ACs to organise themselves into unincorporated<br>
> associations <span style="font-family:"Cambria Math","serif"">‐</span> and so some perceived simplicity compared with the membership model isn’t actually<br>
> possible.<br>
><br>
> SUGGESTED TEXT<br>
><br>
> f) Designators are a construct in California law that can achieve some of the powers proposed below - As ICANN's SOs/ACs struture is consistent with this model, "the selection and removal of Board members" and "the<br>
> approval or blocking of changes to bylaws" can be achieved by changing the ByLaws to define the role of SOs/ACs as designators, without the need to organise unincorporated association. But they cannot reliably deliver other aspects of the set of powers the
CCWG believes the community needs, such as statutory power for full board dismissal and ability to have legal standing in court for enforcement of rights, if it is to fully hold ICANN to account.<br>
> Crucially, in the view of our counsel, to have dismissal of the entire board and for legal enforcement of rights in court, would require some additional contractual relationships between SOs/ACs and ICANN, which would also oblige SOs and ACs to establish
themselves into unincorporated associations, so some of the perceived simplicity compared with the membership model isn't actually achievable.<br>
><br>
><br>
> Izumi<br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list<br>
> <a href="javascript:;">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a><br>
> <a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community" target="_blank">
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a><br>
><br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list<br>
<a href="javascript:;">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a><br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</body>
</html>