[CCWG-ACCT] Regarding members

[Kavouss Arasteh]

Dear Malcolm
Tks again
I hope/ wish it would as simple as you mentioned,
However, it is dangerous  to delegate all such authority to one person.
In case of more than one  , how decision will be made . In case of majority , would the community be able to dismiss all even the minority one?
In the interval between meeting how community will act?
Kavouss    

Sent from my iPhone

> On 24 May 2015, at 12:17, Malcolm Hutty <malcolm at linx.net> wrote:
> 
> 
>> On 24/05/2015 09:29, Kavouss Arasteh wrote:
>> Dear Malcolm
>> What are those terns and conditions as well as applicable rules?
> 
> The SOACs make their own rules. Unless a SOAC creates a rule to the
> contrary, a chair can be dismissed at will be a SOAC. This makes them
> completely accountable to the SOAC.
> 
> That said, I think worrying about the misuse of the power of membership
> is misplaced.
> 
> As I understand it, the only powers that members have are
> i) to go to court alleging that ICANN has not followed its own Bylaws; and
> ii) to inspect a few formal documents that the company is required to
> have by law.
> 
> Is there anything else of which I'm unaware?
> 
> I can't see any reason to worry about excessive or inappropriate use of
> such powers. Courts are familiar with frivolous litigation, and prepared
> to suppress and sanction it - nor could we immunise ICANN against being
> sued by anybody in the world on other grounds, even if we tried.
> 
> If this is not a worry, and if there are no other relevant powers of
> which I'm unaware, there is an even simpler option that perhaps we
> should consider: that the members of ICANN can be anybody in the world
> who applies to become a member.
> 
> This would resolve one of the problems with having part of "the
> community" as members: that they may decline to go to court when they
> ought to.
> 
> Personally, I think that Chris' scenario of a member going to court to
> try to force ICANN to act in a way the Board deems to be outside ICANN's
> powers is pretty fanciful. Such a lawsuit would be doomed to failure: no
> court will order a corporation to act in a particular way merely because
> a member asks it, even if the corporation had erred in believing itself
> precluded from acting in that way.
> 
> But a much more realistic scenario is that of a member going to court to
> restrain the ICANN from acting in a way the Board consider within
> ICANN's powers, but that the member considers outside scope. A court
> could rule on whether a given action is outside a corporation's powers,
> and if it finds that it is, order the corporation to desist.
> 
> However, there is a problem: if the Board is acting outside ICANN's
> scope, quite likely this will not be a rogue Board acting in defiance of
> the community, but rather a Board acting with the full support of the
> SOACs: a "rogue community" asking ICANN to act outside its proper scope.
> Who then is to restrain them?
> 
> Having a broad membership would address this problem. So I ask this
> group, what (if any) problems might be caused by such an option?
> 
> Malcolm.
> 
> -- 
>            Malcolm Hutty | tel: +44 20 7645 3523
>   Head of Public Affairs | Read the LINX Public Affairs blog
> London Internet Exchange | http://publicaffairs.linx.net/
> 
>                 London Internet Exchange Ltd
>           21-27 St Thomas Street, London SE1 9RY
> 
>         Company Registered in England No. 3137929
>       Trinity Court, Trinity Street, Peterborough PE1 1DA
> 
>