[CCWG-ACCT] Accountability questions to law firms

[Paul Rosenzweig]

I respectfully suggest that these same questions be asked of any other
national jurisdiction under potential consideration as an alternate place of
incorporation.   If we are going to honor the “least change” principle that
was so frequently noted in Istanbul we must, at a minimum, not spin our
wheels on jurisdiction without also analyzing the alternatives.

 

Paul

 

Paul Rosenzweig

 <mailto:paul.rosenzweigesq at redbranchconsulting.com>
paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com 

O: +1 (202) 547-0660

M: +1 (202) 329-9650

VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739

Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066

 
<http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=articl
e&id=19&Itemid=9> Link to my PGP Key

 
<http://www.rsaconference.com/events/us15/register?utm_source=inhouse&utm_me
dium=email&utm_campaign=signature-us2015> 

 

From: Pedro Ivo Ferraz da Silva [mailto:pedro.ivo at itamaraty.gov.br] 
Sent: Tuesday, April 7, 2015 10:42 AM
To: accountability-cross-community at icann.org
Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] Accountability questions to law firms

 

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

Divisão da Sociedade da Informação (DI)

Ministério das Relações Exteriores - Brasil

T: + 55 61 2030-6609

 

Secretary Pedro Ivo Ferraz da Silva

Division of Information Society (DI)

Ministry of External Relations - Brazil

T: + 55 61 2030-6609

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20150407/d3cedfda/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 14796 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20150407/d3cedfda/image001.jpg>