[CCWG-ACCT] Board comments now in

[Jordan Carter]

So Bruce - would they have legal standing as individuals? Or as an
unincorporated association, that is, collectively?

Relatedly - has the board analysed whether the model is viable without a
membership approach given the obligations directors hold (fiduciary
obligations) in a non-membership system?

J

On Sunday, 13 September 2015, Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin at melbourneit.com.au>
wrote:

> Hello Malcolm,
>
> >>  Binding Enforcement: In California, final decisions may be turned into
> enforceable court judgments. So an arbitration decision issued following an
> MEM proceeding can be enforced in a court in California. "
>
> >>  My first question is "By whom?"
>
> As per FAQ question no. 13, the answer is The MEM Issue Group.
>
> This MEM Issue Group could be comprised of the individual people serving
> as chairs of the participating SOs/ACs. These individuals would have legal
> standing to initiate arbitration and have legal standing to enforce the
> outcome of the arbitration in court.
>
> ICANN will indemnify the MEM Issue Group, and will bear the fees and
> expenses that might be incurred in any lawsuit arising out of the
> enforcement of a MEM final arbitration decision.
>
> There are other options - but this seems to be the simplest.  More
> elaborate options include forming an unincorporated association for the
> purpose of initiating the arbitration and then seeking to enforce in court
> if necessary  (which I hope is never necessary - as any Board that I have
> been on would abide by the arbitration).
>
> I have attached the relevant docs for ease of reference.
>
> Regards,
> Bruce Tonkin
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

-- 
Jordan Carter
Chief Executive, InternetNZ

+64-21-442-649 | jordan at internetnz.net.nz

Sent on the run, apologies for brevity
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20150913/bb96ca02/attachment.html>