[CCWG-ACCT] Clarification

[Burr, Becky]

Yes, it is possible to set p a system that favors international arbitration over court, but it is worth testing your assumptions re cost, etc.

Sent from my iPad

> On May 21, 2015, at 10:40 PM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> I come back to my question which I do not think anyone answered.
> 
> Is it possible to design this enforceability mechanism so that at the
> most extreme it ends up before international mediators instead of US courts?
> 
> I know individuals contracts can be set to end in arbitration or
> mediation instead of litigation.  Could such a feature be useful here.
> 
> I support the goal, but am not comfortable with litigation.  Not only
> does it have to do with the national aspects and my distrust of the
> judicial system,  it has to do with the cost of litigation and the fact
> that ICANN corporate has a very deep legal war chest and rarely loses. 
> How would the members fund their side of the litigation?  By and large
> in the US legal system, except in the rare case, it is won by the
> deepest pocket.
> 
> avri
> 
> 
>> On 21-May-15 19:30, Drazek, Keith wrote:
>> Becky, this is really helpful. Thanks.  
>> 
>> Keith
>> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Burr, Becky
>> Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2015 12:45 PM
>> To: Accountability Cross Community
>> Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] Clarification
>> 
>> Steve Del Bianco asked if I meant to imply that you would have to go to an IRP first if the Board decided to ignore a community budget veto.  My response below:
>> 
>> Depends a little on the details, e.g. Whether IRP exhaustion was required, etc., how easy it is to secure injunctive relief through IRP vs court. My real point is that in a membership structure the board would be legally bound to respect community veto, so unless you anticipate a lawless board, they would respect the veto. Without the membership structure the board has a legal obligation to exercise its fiduciary obligations and look behind the advisory veto.  Assuming good faith all around, the membership structure actually reduces the likelihood of litigation
>> 
>> Sent from my iPad
>> _______________________________________________
>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=AwICAg&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=DXQDzB1iJCWzd_b4BtIJP1V0zaPv5uq2hkbNC8-RXhY&s=OHzc81PElJrAOq0ga_81UOMMJK7etqvNYDVYmtswmz4&e= 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=AwICAg&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=DXQDzB1iJCWzd_b4BtIJP1V0zaPv5uq2hkbNC8-RXhY&s=OHzc81PElJrAOq0ga_81UOMMJK7etqvNYDVYmtswmz4&e= 
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.avast.com&d=AwICAg&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=DXQDzB1iJCWzd_b4BtIJP1V0zaPv5uq2hkbNC8-RXhY&s=f20IRWGv5EzV1EPVu53MsYWR5hDtjSDnaYq3JQeo7gQ&e= 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=AwICAg&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=DXQDzB1iJCWzd_b4BtIJP1V0zaPv5uq2hkbNC8-RXhY&s=OHzc81PElJrAOq0ga_81UOMMJK7etqvNYDVYmtswmz4&e=