<div dir="ltr">Graeme,<div><br></div><div>May I gently suggest that you are treating this as a definitive legal opinion by stating the two outcomes you think it suggests. </div><div><br></div><div> I think the outcome it suggests is that we need independent legal counseling. I use t he word "counseling" and not "advice" on purpose. A good counselor solves a client's problems and protects the client from risk. A document like the one in question is at best a jumping off point for such counseling, which is by definition interactive and iterative in nature.</div><div><br></div><div>That said, it's entirely possible that, even after robust attempts at problem-solving, that the proposal that best meets the needs of the global multistakeholder community could involve an external-to-ICANN option or could only be feasible under the laws of a different jurisdiction.</div><div><br></div><div>But we are far, far away from this.</div><div><br></div><div>I'll admit that, in my private practice, there are times I feel that I have to walk clients through fairly negative steps in terms of the legal environment, risks and worst-case scenarios. But then the real work starts (I might even say "the fun begins" but that sounds kind of pathetically wonky), starting with "But this is what we can do..." and tell them how we will meet their needs. Of course, there are times when you need to tell clients "No," but most of the time, it should be "No, but..." It's the really rare case where you say "No. Just No." (or how do you look in an orange jumpsuit...). Even in those cases, you try to find the client a reasonable solution to as many of their key points as possible.</div><div><br></div><div>So, rather than looking at this as a conversation stopper, it will be more fruitful to view it as a conversation starter.</div><div><br></div><div>Greg<br><br>On Monday, February 9, 2015, Graeme Bunton <<a href="mailto:gbunton@tucows.com" target="_blank">gbunton@tucows.com</a>> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
I read it with some interest, and as was pointed out by Milton and
others in the Accountability WG, it is legal that advocates from and
for a particular perspective. Which is of course fine, so long as we
don't treat this as definitive legal opinion for our purposes.<br>
<br>
To me, it seems to suggest either of two outcomes:<br>
- The re-domiciling of ICANN to a jurisdiction that would allow the
community to assert itself upon the board<br>
- Some version of the external to ICANN option we've been discussing<br>
<br>
Graeme<br>
<br>
<div>On 2015-02-09 1:33 AM, Milton L Mueller
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d">People
who read this should keep in mind that Jones Day is ICANN’s
lawyer and as such has an interest in, if not an obligation
to, interpret or represent the law in ways that serve the
interests of its client.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><a name="14b6c273cf791f9c_14b6bc1fd6ac1d02__MailEndCompose"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></a></p>
<div style="border:none;border-left:solid blue 1.5pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 4.0pt">
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #e1e1e1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">
<a>cwg-rfp3-bounces@icann.org</a>
[<a>mailto:cwg-rfp3-bounces@icann.org</a>]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>James Gannon<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Sunday, February 8, 2015 5:11 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> <a>cwg-stewardship@icann.org</a><br>
<b>Cc:</b> RFP3<br>
<b>Subject:</b> [CWG-RFP3] CCWG California Law
Response<u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d" lang="EN-GB">I believe that the CWG should be
aware of the response from Jones Day to the CCWG’s
questions of California law noted below while we
are considering options and they will feed into
the acceptability of both models under discussion:<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d" lang="EN-GB"><a href="https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20150208/ed62a5b3/AccountabilityQuestionsforCCWG-fromJonesDay-0001.pdf" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20150208/ed62a5b3/AccountabilityQuestionsforCCWG-fromJonesDay-0001.pdf</a><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d" lang="EN-GB">I have copied an excerpt extracted
and notes on the domainmondo article below:
<a href="http://www.domainmondo.com/2015/02/icann-lawyers-nix-icann-accountability.html" target="_blank">http://www.domainmondo.com/2015/02/icann-lawyers-nix-icann-accountability.html</a>
<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d" lang="EN-GB"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:12.0pt;margin-left:.5in"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d" lang="EN-GB">>>Initial Responses to the
Community Working Group’s California Law
Questions, 7 February 2015,from Jones Day (ICANN's
lawyers) to questions submitted by the Cross
Community Working Group (CCWG).... (excerpts
below, full responses <a href="http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20150208/ed62a5b3/AccountabilityQuestionsforCCWG-fromJonesDay-0001.pdf" target="_blank"><span style="color:#1f497d;text-decoration:none">here</span></a>)--<br>
<br>
Jones Day: “…. It is important to note that, even
in the context of members and delegates,
California law provides that the activities and
affairs of ICANN still must be conducted and all
corporate powers must be exercised by or under the
direction of the Board. Accordingly, members and
delegates cannot force the Board to take a certain
action or overturn a Board decision. The rights of
members and delegates under California law
are limited and are more closely associated with
approval rights over specified actions, rather
than the right to second guess or supersede Board
action or inaction. For example, members would
only be entitled to approve the Board’s budget and
would not be able to propose or approve a separate
budget. As with any new structure, adding
“members” or “delegates” raises a considerable
number of governance issues, including the
mechanisms to hold these new members or delegates
accountable, how these members/delegates would be
selected (and how could they be changed), what
specified matters would the members/delegates be
entitled to approve, what would be the applicable
voting threshold for each specified matter, how
often would member/delegate meetings be held and
how much notice would be required for those
meetings, and how would the creation of
members/delegates affect the existing Board
selection structure. Further, any new structure
must be evaluated against the question of whether
the new structure actually solves the underlying
problem or meets the underlying goal. In some
respects, the introduction of “members” or
“delegates,” while initially appealing, may not
solve the underlying problems and could simply
result in moving the “problems” to another body of
individuals where similar accountability concerns
would persist (i.e., who watches the watchers) ….<br>
<br>
“4. In the case of inaction by the Board on an
issue developed through community consensus, is it
possible to have a mechanism that will empower the
community to require the Board to take action? <br>
<br>
“No. California law does not provide for a
mechanism that would empower the community,
regardless of whether ICANN has members or not, to
force the Board to take action on a community
proposal. The activities and affairs of ICANN must
be managed and all corporate powers must be
exercised under the ultimate direction of the
Board….” <u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d">James
Gannon<u></u><u></u></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d">Director<u></u><u></u></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d">Cyber
Invasion Ltd<u></u><u></u></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d">Dun
Laoghaire, County Dublin, Ireland<u></u><u></u></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d">Office:
<a href="tel:%2B353%20%281%29663-8787" value="+35316638787" target="_blank">+353 (1)663-8787</a><u></u><u></u></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d">Cell:
<a href="tel:%2B353%20%2886%29175-3581" value="+353861753581" target="_blank">+353 (86)175-3581</a><u></u><u></u></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d">Email<a>:james<span lang="EN-IE">@cyberinvasion.net</span></a><u></u><u></u></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d">GPG:
<a href="https://keybase.io/jayg" target="_blank">https://keybase.io/jayg</a></span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d" lang="EN-IE"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d" lang="EN-GB"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d" lang="EN-GB"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset></fieldset>
<br>
<pre>_______________________________________________
CWG-Stewardship mailing list
<a>CWG-Stewardship@icann.org</a>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<pre cols="72">--
_________________________
Graeme Bunton
Manager, Management Information Systems
Manager, Public Policy
Tucows Inc.
PH: <a href="tel:416%20535%200123%20ext%201634" value="+14165350123" target="_blank">416 535 0123 ext 1634</a></pre>
</div>
</blockquote></div>
</div>