[CCWG-ACCT] MEM and enforceability

Tue Sep 22 13:22:22 UTC 2015

Two entirely different issues. The issue of SO/AC accountability to the
communities that organise through them is identified as one that is beyond
Work Stream 1, because it is an enduring and ongoing iCANN issue.

If you'd like to promote that into WS1, could you tease out the logic a bit
more?

Improvements or consideration of that question does not resolve the "who
watches the watchers" matter implicit in the other point. We can 'resolve'
that by accepting that mutual accountability is important but that in the
end, separations of responsibilities and clear rules along with
transparency are the best we, or any other governance system, can manage.

my tuppence!

J

On 23 September 2015 at 01:00, Chris Disspain <ceo at auda.org.au> wrote:

> If we go down an endless chain of "but who are *they* accountable to?"
> then we simply lock into an endlessly recursive argument that can never be
> resolved.
>
> That doesn't mean SOs and ACs can't improve accountability - I believe we
> have specified that as a WS2 topic, and that it's natural fodder for ATRT
> reviews?
>
>
> Are those 2 statements not contradictory? Either we can resolve or we
> can’t. If we can’t then I believe that is a flaw in the plan and if we can
> resolve then I believe we should do so as part of our current work.
>
>
>
> Cheers,
>
>
> Chris
>
> On 22 Sep 2015, at 22:52 , Jordan Carter <jordan at internetnz.net.nz> wrote:
>
> Sam, as I just noted to Chris, the lawyers need to flesh that out. As a
> matter of principle, on the narrow scope of decisions the member is
> allocated in the CCWG's second draft proposal, complying with those
> decisions does not give rise to a breach of directors' fiduciary duties --
> even if, in the absence of such a model (e.g. if there was no member and it
> was simply a "recommendation" from some kind of community group), it was
> held to do so.
>
> Chris: your latest just gets back to the endless chain of accountability
> discussion that we've come to now and again since the Istanbul meeting.
>
> To recap: given that the body being held to account (ICANN's Board) is
> shifting from a situation of external accountability (NTIA contract) to
> internal community accountability (through this system), the only option we
> have is for stakeholders organised in some way to fulfil that function,
> along with the mutual accountability that can arise from the Forum proposal.
>
> Those people, the participants in the various SOs and ACs, are the people
> to whom ICANN needs to be accountable. They are the direct users and
> interested indirect users who choose to participate in this ICANN project.
>
> If we go down an endless chain of "but who are *they* accountable to?"
> then we simply lock into an endlessly recursive argument that can never be
> resolved.
>
> That doesn't mean SOs and ACs can't improve accountability - I believe we
> have specified that as a WS2 topic, and that it's natural fodder for ATRT
> reviews?
>
>
> cheers!
> Jordan
>
> On 23 September 2015 at 00:43, Samantha Eisner <Samantha.Eisner at icann.org>
> wrote:
>
>> Jordan, can you please elaborate more on the “different fiduciary duty”
>> situation that you refer?  As I understand it, the fiduciary duties of the
>> Board do not change whether a member is present or not.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Sam
>>
>> From: <accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of
>> Jordan Carter <jordan at internetnz.net.nz>
>> Date: Tuesday, September 22, 2015 at 5:15 AM
>> To: Chris Disspain <ceo at auda.org.au>
>> Cc: "Accountability Cross Community (
>> accountability-cross-community at icann.org)" <
>> accountability-cross-community at icann.org>
>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] MEM and enforceability
>>
>> Hi Chris, all:
>>
>> The second is not the same with the single member model. As has been
>> outlined on list before, the different fiduciary duties situation that
>> exists with membership solves that problem.
>>
>> On the first, the plan of the CCWG has been binding not advisory IRP so I
>> don't think that it is the same, no.
>>
>> On the third, that does seem a sensible time frame constraint...
>>
>> best
>> Jordan
>>
>>
>> On 23 September 2015 at 00:06, Chris Disspain <ceo at auda.org.au> wrote:
>>
>>> Hello David,
>>>
>>> I appreciate the constructive criticism 😀.
>>>
>>> Are these points not the same as with the IRP in the sole member model?
>>> They would need to be addressed in either case wouldn't they?
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>>
>>> Chris
>>>
>>> On 22 Sep 2015, at 21:59, McAuley, David <dmcauley at verisign.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> I appreciate the board’s input and take it as a good faith effort to
>>> enhance and evolve the CCWG proposal.
>>>
>>> However, I have, with respect, three critiques of it.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> First, the ability to create a remedy if the MEM panel finds against the
>>> board is completely within the board’s discretion. Even a slight (even
>>> inconsequential) “remedy” would be a remedy and would, effectively, bar any
>>> viable avenue to court enforcement.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Second, (and this applies to any panel ruling) any decision by the board
>>> to state that a ruling against it falls into the area of the board’s
>>> fiduciary obligations (thus frustrating implementation of the ruling)
>>> should itself be appealable to ensure that this is, in fact, an objectively
>>> justified conclusion.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> And, third, if we went down this path, the board’s ability to create a
>>> remedy (subject, I would urge, to some test for reasonableness) should be
>>> time-limited so that a claimant need not wait and wonder if it can ever
>>> appeal to court.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> David McAuley
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>>> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>>> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Jordan Carter
>>
>> Chief Executive
>> *InternetNZ*
>>
>> +64-4-495-2118 (office) | +64-21-442-649 (mob)
>> Email: jordan at internetnz.net.nz
>> Skype: jordancarter
>> Web: www.internetnz.nz
>>
>> *A better world through a better Internet *
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Jordan Carter
>
> Chief Executive
> *InternetNZ*
>
> +64-4-495-2118 (office) | +64-21-442-649 (mob)
> Email: jordan at internetnz.net.nz
> Skype: jordancarter
> Web: www.internetnz.nz
>
> *A better world through a better Internet *
>
>
>

-- 
Jordan Carter

Chief Executive
*InternetNZ*

+64-4-495-2118 (office) | +64-21-442-649 (mob)
Email: jordan at internetnz.net.nz
Skype: jordancarter
Web: www.internetnz.nz

*A better world through a better Internet *
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20150923/ab8f74c5/attachment.html>