[CCWG-ACCT] Who is managing the lawyers and what have they beenasked to do?

[Dr Eberhard Lisse]

Dear Co-Chairs,

If I recall correctly Chris Dispain already shared concerns about the
ccNSO being able to become a member.

Neither model does anything for ccTLDs, because the ccNSO has no mandate
to speak for individual ccTLs, whether members of ccNSO, or not.

Looks like one side wants the designator model off the table and the
other wants the member model off the table.

So, let's take both models off the table :-)-O

el


On 2015-07-07 12:33, Malcolm Hutty wrote:
> 
> On 07/07/2015 09:21, Seun Ojedeji wrote:
>> One of the summary I got from BA was that the "empowered SO/AC
>> membership model" and the "empowered SO/AC designator model" would be
>> reviewed in detail. Understanding the known challenges with membership
>> route, I wonder why we would be spending more legal hours on it after
>> the ones already spent till date. 
> 
> Actually, Seun, we (I and at least some others) don't understand the
> objections to the membership model, that's why we're asking those who
> say they have a problem with it to specify their concerns more precisely
> so that solutions can be found.
> 
> The problem with the designator model is clear and precisely specified:
> our task in this CCWG is to ensure that there is an effective means to
> hold ICANN to account for adherence to the commitments it makes in its
> bylaws. The only route the designator model provides to achieve that
> lies through dismissing the Directors. This is wholly inadequate: this
> group has made quite clear its view that it considers such action
> undesirable and destabilising, and should only be contemplated in utter
> extremis. So the designator model simply fails to achieve our goals.
> 
> Moreover, the designator model is inflexible: the powers of designators
> are fixed in the statute, and we cannot add to them. So this is
> insoluble, and the designator model must come off the table: continuing
> to discuss it is a waste of our valuable time because it cannot achieve
> our primary goal.
> 
> 
> The membership model does solve this problem: it provides a clear means
> to enforce ICANN's binding commitments. It is also much more flexible:
> we can adjust:
> 
> * to some extent, the powers of members through the corporate governing
> documents;
> * to some extent, the means those powers are exercised through the
> corporate government documents;
> * who may have the right to become a member, and thus who gets to
> exercise the powers of membership, again through the corporate governing
> documents.
> * furthermore, the conditions under which the members' powers may be
> exercised, the process for exercising them, and thresholds that must be
> reached, can all be further controlled through a binding agreement
> between the members.
> 
> This gives us many potential routes through which we can seek to address
> the concerns that may be raised with membership. I do not doubt that
> there may be valid concerns that absolutely need to be addressed. We can
> do this, if we all work together in a constructive fashion. The first
> step is to clearly identify what it is about the membership model that
> so frightens some people, so that we can design in checks and solutions
> to those concerns.
> 
> 
> Malcolm.
> 
> 

-- 
Dr. Eberhard W. Lisse  \        / Obstetrician & Gynaecologist (Saar)
el at lisse.NA            / *     |   Telephone: +264 81 124 6733 (cell)
PO Box 8421             \     /
Bachbrecht, Namibia     ;____/