[CCWG-ACCT] Regarding members

Sun May 24 17:36:08 UTC 2015

Kavouss,

We obviously have no specific rules for "ICANN Members" since that 
position does not currently exist. For all other appointments, we can 
recall on a person by person basis and I would expect that to not 
change if we enact specific rules for ICANN Members. Of course, that 
is just my expectation and cannot control the outcome, but I am not 
sure why we would do all or nothing.

I do note that elsewhere in our rules, we require people appointed to 
represent us to, where possible and practical, to consult the ALAC on 
their position on a given topic, and to follow such advice if given.

Alan

At 24/05/2015 01:27 PM, Kavouss Arasteh wrote:
>Alan
>Tks for explanation
>You did not address my last point, in case of decision making , say 
>5 appointees by majority and disagreement of community for the 
>decision made followed by dismissal, all 5 would be dismissed or 
>only those who voted for that contested decision?
>Tks
>Kavouss
>
>
>Sent from my iPhone
>
>On 24 May 2015, at 17:47, Alan Greenberg 
><<mailto:alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca> wrote:
>
>>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 
>>> <<mailto:malcolm at linx.net>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
>>><mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>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/20150524/20011485/attachment.html>