Attendees: 

Notes

Objective: Refine aspects of relationship between council and CCWG and clarify concerns that have been raised during CCWG calls these past weeks: whether the membership model is best way to go or whether there are other options. 

There still is confusion on models. Regardless of choosing membership or designators, we would still need to form UAs for each model. There seems to be belief that UAs would not be necessary with designator model. 

-> Council recommends enforcing UA for both. Interpretation from current Bylaws is that you have designators model that are not legal persons outside of ICANN. Should any of their rights be eliminated or not granted, they would have no external recourse because there is no person who could have standing to call others to account. This may be where the confusion lies. The reason it has persisted is that the California law specificially requires that members be separate legal persons where law is not as clear on this requirement. Interpretation is that it is. If you decide enforceability is far less important, perhaps then you don't need persons and can stick to designators but not all powers can be given through designators model. 

ACTION ITEM: Clarify with larger group that UAs apply to both designators and membership. 

The ability to have an enforceable IANA functions review process - required by CWG - is also important. 

If we choose not to go for membership model, a dependency to CWG would not be respected. Plain designators model would not meet the needs. 

ACTION ITEM: point us to existing memos where aspects of designators model information is available.

The volunteer model is the model we are currently in. are there ways to tweak the volunteer model to not go to Court but to make it enforceable? 

- The IFR recommendations would go to the board.  If the board refused to implement the changes, community could do an IRP.  Couldn't that reverse the Board's decision? If Board agrees to be bound by that IRP decision OK but if Board disagrees with IRP decision and not changing action. Question is who ultimately will have power to enforce? Community has to have power to enforce their view and potentially override the Board. 

The designators model could still sue in Court to enforce IRP decision. 

A court will not typically recognize a non legal person as having standing. Individual or company could go to Court but if the community or one of the SGs that does not exist as a person, the person you are trying to enforce against could say there is no complainant. It is a threshold issue. A court will not recognize a designator that does not have a legal person.Your IRP procedures can allow non-person to appear but no court will allow someone who does not have standing to come to them. 

There is belief that cost of enforceability is too high: 1) UA complexity; 2) creating the status of members/designators would open flood gates of SO/ACs of running to Court and bypassing IRP, public comment process and would create risk of running to Court constantly. We need help there. 

If we had no members and created binding arbitration in the Bylaws, who would the Bylaws be at contract with? In absence of members, who are the Bylaws/the contract with? 

The most approrpiate way to enforce IRP process is to have legal persons on both sides: legal person for legal members/designators and agrees roles and responsibilities through contract to be bound by IRP process. They will be compelled to go through arbitration and Courts will defer to that decision. You had an IRP process: ICANN on one side but no legal person on other side. The IRP is only way that somebody can act. If they have a claim they can only go through IRP. Ultimately that depends upon voluntary compliance by ICANN. 

What if someone filed an IRP and ICANN entered into the IRP. Decision to enter inter arbitration said to be binding- would that work or would directors have fiduciary duty to look behind? The Board cannot agree to make IRP binding in current structure because it has a fiduciary obligation to make decisions in best interest of organization.

-> The Board can agree but it is voluntary. 

Absent a membership model, it is status quo regarding enforceability?

If you have legal persons on other side, they can enforce IRP. The membership model refers to member vote the three community powers. 

ACTION ITEM: Clarify questions we want addressed and certify the GAC questions. Mathieu to be the leadership point of contact., Holly and Rosemary to be to the lawyers point of contact. 

No filing is required: we are trying to get formal response. 

Important to avoid getting into too much detail and information sent simultaneously. Triage is needed. We need to have these in preparation for GAC meeting in BA. We need an orderly way. 

Demonstrate: Internal voluntary annd designators model: some powers are not workable and where they fail to be workable. Chart should show how it impacts CCWG proposal.

Enforceable means that a Court could enforce the community's vote to block a Bylaws change. Court should not interpret that decision but rather check whether it is being enforced or not. 

Action Items

ACTION ITEM: Clarify with larger group that UAs apply to both designators and membership

ACTION ITEM: point us to existing memos where aspects of designators model information is available.

ACTION ITEM: Clarify questions we want addressed and certify the GAC questions. Mathieu to be the leadership point of contact., Holly and Rosemary to be to the lawyers point of contact. 

Transcript

Transcript CCWG acct Leadership and Lawyers 5 June.doc

Transcript CCWG Acct Leadership and Lawyers 5 June.pdf

Recordings

Adobe Connect Recording can be accessed here:  https://icann.adobeconnect.com/p1jpfb18j03/

MP3 Recording link can be accessed here:  CCWG ACCT Leadership & Lawyers.mp3

Chat Transcript

Alice Jansen:hi Rosemary!

  Rosemary Fei:Hi Alice -- and Mike

  Rosemary Fei:Hi, Leon

  Rosemary Fei:Hi, Holly

  Mathieu Weill:Hi all

  Michael Clark (Sidley Austin LLP):Hello everyone.  Michael Clark and Holly Gregory sharing one adobe connect log in from London

  Holly Gregory (Sidley):Hi.  Im now on Adobe Connect on my own.

  Becky Burr:hellow

  Steve DelBianco   [GNSO - CSG]:No -- enforceablility IS important

  Holly Gregory (Sidley):@Rosemary, Agree that designators need to be legal persons if this is not a voluntary governance model

  Holly Gregory (Sidley):Sidley agrees with @Rosemary's points

  Holly Gregory (Sidley):Under a designator model, concern is that all of the CWG dependencies cannot be met

  Steve DelBianco   [GNSO - CSG]:Josh -- the IFR recommendations would go to the board.  If the board refused to implement the changes, community could do an IRP.  Couldn't THAT reverse the board's decision?

  Edward McNicholas, Sidley Austin LLP:In noting that members can enforce their rights, we should not lose point of the fact that most disputes will continue to be resolved via binding arbitration

  Leon Sanchez:cricket

  Rosemary Fei:In notes, not "volunteer" but "voluntary"

  Holly Gregory (Sidley):Yes @ED, binding arbitaration  backed by ability to go to court

  Rosemary Fei:Request clarification: does "internal model" equate to "voluntary model"?

  Leon Sanchez:I see enforceability as a two tier game. First tier is where the Board is obliged to take into account what members/designators tell them. Second tier is where the Board doesn't take into account and therefore doesn't comply with its obligation and then someone decides to trigger some mechanism to enforce rights, being Court the last resource

  Holly Gregory (Sidley):In addition, there is ability to recall the board

  Mathieu Weill:@Holly : could we have Board recall without members ?

  Leon Sanchez:@Mathieu my understanding is yes with designators

  Becky Burr:so we are just in the same situation - the IRP is not binding

  Stephanie Petit:@Mathieu, yes.  You can have Board recall with designators.

  Becky Burr:no, i dont think that's right

  Becky Burr:but it can't be binding without members

  Stephanie Petit:@Becky, the Board recall can be enforced if there are legal persons.  Recall that the designator model counsel suggests has UAs, persons.

  Becky Burr:right, i'm just talking about making the IRP binding. 

  Holly Gregory (Sidley):Designators  need to be legal persons unless you want their powers as now to only be subject to non-binding internal mechanisms.

  Stephanie Petit:I must defer to Sidley regarding the discussion of IRP.

  Mathieu Weill:@Holly : could existing SO/AC argue they are already a UA ?

  Holly Gregory (Sidley):Very little complexity in a UA -- Agree

  Leon Sanchez:I thin the main arguments so far are complexity in implementation and the risk of going rogue

  Rosemary Fei:@Becky, exactly, there has to be a PARTY to the contract

  Rosemary Fei:Bylaws may be enforced by directors, members, officers

  Holly Gregory (Sidley):We can require that internal mechanisms and arbitration be used prior to court. 

  Rosemary Fei:CA AG is not going to enforce bylaws as contract -- AG cares only about breaches of charitable trust

  Mathieu Weill:@Rosemary : so Directors representing ccNSO could go to court to enforce, or the SO/AC could dismiss them

  Mathieu Weill:?

  Rosemary Fei:UAs will not have any assets; how are they going to pay court fees?

  Rosemary Fei:@Mathieu, yes

  Steve DelBianco   [GNSO - CSG]:I heard you say a non-legal person could have standing to file an IRP, but they would not have standing to ask a CA court to enforce the IRP decision.  Right?

  Holly Gregory (Sidley):Mathieu, the director as a director would have standing for disputes related to the bylaws so as a practical matter yes -- but agian, the right to designate the director requires that the UA be a legal person

  Mathieu Weill:@Rosemary: so in the voluntary model, a key to enforrceability could be the ability to remove this Director ?

  Holly Gregory (Sidley):es, but that ability requires that the designator or member who appointed is a legal person, if they want to be able to enforce the right to appoint and remove

  Rosemary Fei:@Mathieu, agree with Holly's response

  Steve DelBianco   [GNSO - CSG]:If board refuses to agree to enter a BINDING IRP, there's nothing to enforce.   And only Member model lets us override the board's claim that their fiducuary duty forces them to decline a binding IRP

  Mathieu Weill:Leon, can I try to clarify ?

  Holly Gregory (Sidley):We are only aswering questions that you certify to us.  So we are answering the Perez questions as Rosemary said.  Please send them to us .

  Holly Gregory (Sidley):Please send us all questions that you would like us to respond to.  We are not reviewing the questions as they are raised.

  Holly Gregory (Sidley):may I respond?

  Rosemary Fei:I am only aware of the Perez questions being outstanding, although it's possible questions from Jorge Cancio are still outstanding.  That's all.

  Leon Sanchez:Thanks @Rosemary

  Mathieu Weill:Absolutely Rosemary. I suggest a re-sync on that

  Leon Sanchez:yes

  Mathieu Weill:Who would be the point of contact for the lawyers to go through the questions ?

  Rosemary Fei:Sorry, there is one additional set of questions that's outstanding -- from Sam Eisner on member rights provided by statute.  We're nearly ready to send that to you.

  Rosemary Fei:Holly is coordinating counsel, as designated by you.

  Mathieu Weill:Holly and Rosemary, perfect !

  Holly Gregory (Sidley):@Mathieu - great idea to update and clarify the chart

  Holly Gregory (Sidley):and we will also catalgue the discussions of these issues in prior memos

  Holly Gregory (Sidley):and add to it how CWG dependencies are included

  Rosemary Fei:So is the chart update being certified by this conversation, or will we get a written directive (which was the required protocol, but you can waive your own protocols, of course)?

  Leon Sanchez:@Rosemary it is certified by this conversatino

  Mathieu Weill:Staff, can you request the update of the chart as an action item please ?

  Rosemary Fei:Thank you, Leon

  Holly Gregory (Sidley):@Steve, understood re enforceability -- ability to go to court supports the board's commitment to  the community powers

  Steve DelBianco   [GNSO - CSG]:We had a requirement for powers.  And we assume that a power must be enforceable for it to be an actual exercise of power.

  Holly Gregory (Sidley):Without legal enforceability the entire accountabiliyt system you are building in voluntary

  Becky Burr:enforceability anywhere short of spilling the board -

  Rosemary Fei:What does "enforceable" mean, short of being able to enforce in court?  We need you to tell us what's "enough" enforceability.

  Steve DelBianco   [GNSO - CSG]:the backtracking is driven by fears that we'd have ICANN in court quite frequently, and that courts would be interpreting ICANN bylaws, mission, etc.

  Mathieu Weill:@Rosemary : yes, enforceable is not easy what is "enough". So we have to test several levels with the group to see what level is appropriate

  Becky Burr:i think we are getting a little off track.  we said, in a fairly convincing way, that you can people out of court.  folks then focused on complexity

  Becky Burr:exactly Holly - we end up with a voluntary arrangement

  Steve DelBianco   [GNSO - CSG]:Amen, Holly

  Mathieu Weill:@Becky one good argument I've heard is that the Internet was built on voluntary arrangements

  Becky Burr:the Post/Kehl New America Foundation comments are good on this point

  Becky Burr:yes, voluntary arrangments between absolutely heterogeneous volunteers

  Steve DelBianco   [GNSO - CSG]:Congress may insist on enforceability.  NTIA will not, since they will accept whatever the community proposal says

  Becky Burr:academics and engineers in  non profit community

  Becky Burr:thanks.

  Mathieu Weill:Thanks for chairing Leon !

  Rosemary Fei:Bye, all.

  Leon Sanchez:Thanks everyone