[CCWG-ACCT] Notes-Recordings-Transcript links for LEGAL SubTeam Meeting #11 15 April

[Brenda Brewer]

Dear all, 

 

The notes, recordings and transcripts for the Accountability LEGAL SubTeam Meeting #11 on 15 April
will be available here:  https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=52895738

 


Action Items


ACTION ITEM - Advise law firms we will need one lawyer for each call on 23-24 April and circulate
agenda as soon as available. 

ACTION ITEM: Staff to arrange a legal subteam session in between intensive sessions 

ACTION ITEM: Set expectations on whether we want lawyers to observe or participate based on agenda. 

ACTION ITEM: Robin to incorporate Greg's edits on chart

ACTION ITEM Questions raised by Samantha Eisner to be relayed to lawyers

ACTION ITEM Samantha to take a first pass at filtering/prioritizing questions.

ACTION ITEM: Task lawyers to review WP2 templates and advise on what would need to be put in place
to achieve goals. . 

ACTION ITEM - David to raise issue of IRP with lawyers

ACTION ITEM - Ask Paul Twomey to elaborate on question/concern. 

ACTION ITEM - Send intensive session calendar invites to all, including lawyers 

ACTION ITEM - Circulate revised version of chart asap in time for WP1 call today

ACTION ITEM: Circulate WP2 templates and updated chart


Notes


Accountability LEGAL Meeting #11 on 15 April.

Please note that chat sessions are being archived and follow the ICANN Expected Standards of
Behavior: http://www.icann.org/en/news/in-focus/accountability/expected-standards  

Legal Subt Drafts - http://tinyurl.com/kajxlc <http://tinyurl.com/kajxlc4> 

These high-level notes are designed to help you navigate through content of the call and do not
substitute in any way the transcript.

1. 

Discuss scheduling and address Samantha Eisner email 

Intensive two-days: decision on presence of lawyers will be made on Tuesday based on agenda. 

Suggestion: 1 lawyer to listen in on meetings to understand what proposals entail and what we are
trying to achieve. 

No downtime - lawyers are needed

CONCLUSION 

1 lawyer on each call would be desirable

ACTION ITEM - Advise law firms we will need one lawyer for each call on 23-24 April and circulate
agenda as soon as available. 

Suggestion to have legal subteam call in between intensive sessions to iron out details and touch
base with a note that it may overload agenda. 

ACTION ITEM: Staff to arrange a legal subteam session in between intensive sessions 

ACTION ITEM: Set expectations on whether we want lawyers to observe or participate based on agenda. 

 

2.

Teased out what are the specific 6 community powers we are trying to achieve - and looked at how
would enforce it in models. All 6 powers can be created in both models although more complicated in
designator model because we would rely on Bylaws. Contractual mechanism would be needed 
in membership model. For both models, we would need to create intra ICANN judiciary to resolve
disputes that could arise from these powers. 

Feedback:

- Expectation is that with good accountability mechanisms in place, judiciary won't be needed.
Litigation based on violation of corporate vs. contractual may be 
easier - need to look at this. Up to next Friday, we need to focus on ability to get directional
proposal. 

- Concerned that larger group would think that under membership model, we constantly go to court.
Dangerous impression to give to anybody. 2 problems/2 solutions 
to making chart more representative. Approve Bylaws: right to enforce lawsuit is a problem. - 3
columns needed under each: how can right be exercised? and 
how can right be enforced (recourse etc). Designators have one less option than members regarding
judiciary. 

ACTION ITEM: Robin to incorporate Greg's edits on chart

3.

Questions have been compiled: IRP, Board inaction, removal of Board etc 

ACTION ITEM Questions raised by Samantha Eisner to be relayed to lawyers

Suggestion to prioritize and filter questions 

ACTION ITEM Samantha to take a first pass at filtering/prioritizing questions.

We have not received legal guidance on WP2. The legal subteam reviewed IRP, Board inaction, internal
Bylaw option related questions. 

Feedback: 

- Both membership and designator models threw limitations on IRP. To give teeth to IRP decision,
both sides will need to go towards that with a contract for Board members. It can be done for action
and inactions. 

- Could have contract with Board when Board member takes seat, it signs letter of resignation when
disagreement with IRP decision. 

ACTION ITEM: Task lawyers to review WP2 templates and advise on what would need to be put in place
to achieve goals. 

- Power would be in community to enforce decision. There needs to be a way for community to disagree
with parts of the IRP decision - middleground necessary. 

`ACTION ITEM - David to raise issue of IRP with lawyers

ACTION ITEM - Ask Paul Twomey to elaborate on question/concern. 

Which would be mechanisms that would trigger action from community to have Board act on something
that has not been addressed is a valid question. Answer would depend on final structure we would be
proposing. 

- Suggestion to highlight there is a path on Board inaction  

ST-WP frustration about absence of input on WP2 and use of Board removal as tool. 

- Request guidance on whether there are problems for CCWG identified options. 

- - - - - Counsel joining

4. 

Expectation to have 1 lawyer on each calls and might ask to have more members present on certain
calls (in light of agenda).

ACTION ITEM - Send intensive session calendar invites to all, including lawyers 

Lawyers present on CCWG-Acct calls, legal subteam calls and, upon request, on WP calls. 

Columns will be added to chart. Updated version will be sent. 

- Time needed - heavy lifting on judicial side. 

- Helpful to know whether private arbitral enforcement or judicial.

ACTION ITEM - Circulate revised version of chart asap in time for WP1 call today

- Need to look what type of escalation path can be taken before ultimate judicial can be enforced.
This also ties to WP2s. Ask to look at existing mechanisms 
instead of new arbitral mechanisms 

5

IRP panel could result on binding and scope could be expanded. Trigger mechanism to bring things to
Board. WP2 focusing on reconsideration, ombudsman 
and mission + core values. 

Request for reconsideration - Robin walked through template. Reconsideration process is in Bylaws -
edits in doc are Bylaws changes so important to have check by lawyers. 

Prioritizing needed 

CONCLUSION

#1 Priority assigned to chart (Friday)

#2 WP2 (Tuesday)

#3 Rest of assigned questions 

Clear confirmation on whether IRP can be binding. 

ACTION ITEM: Circulate WP2 templates and updated chart

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20150415/4db78e5e/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 92 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20150415/4db78e5e/image001.gif>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 5035 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20150415/4db78e5e/smime.p7s>