[CCWG-ACCT] Regarding members

[Alan Greenberg]

Two points:

1. The SO/AC could well delegate multiple people. That is why we have 
suggested a weight of 5 for SO/ACs. In the case of the ALAC, it could 
well be one person per region (perhaps the five members of the ALAC 
Leadership Team (ALT) which is regionally balanced).

2. I cannot speak to other groups, but the ALAC has specific and very 
clear rules for removing its Chair, any member of the ALT, or in fact 
any appointee to any position. See 
<http://tinyurl.com/ALAC-RoP-2013-04>http://tinyurl.com/ALAC-RoP-2013-04, 
sections 20 and 22. If we were to go the way of specific people being 
ICANN Members, we would likely add explicit provisions for this 
appointment as well.

Alan

At 24/05/2015 09:19 AM, Kavouss Arasteh wrote:
>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
> >
> >
>_______________________________________________
>Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20150524/f782c4f6/attachment.html>