<html>
<body>
Well, you will recall that my preference is not to have the ability to
take action except in the case of a Board refusing to step down.
<br><br>
But if fact, the need to indemnify just decreases the chance that ICANN
would defy the comunity.<br><br>
At 31/05/2015 01:24 PM, Seun Ojedeji wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">Hi Alan, all<br><br>
Thinking aloud here: By all these legal stuff, ain't we creating an
avenue for coup/gaming in near future? Why do we want to transition into
a phase where SO/AC would be so exposed and where ICANN would become so
distracted with bearing legal cost that may arise as a result of one
external organisation charging an SO/AC legally.<br><br>
I am yet to be convinced of the need permit such legal enforceability by
the community as i think the possible disadvantages would most likely
outweigh its advantage. I think the legal suing route should always be
between ICANN (as an organisation) and its client (contracted parties).
<br><br>
While i agree with Olivier that this may never happen, i don't think such
option should even be possible. As we may be surprised that it would test
the creativity of some members of the community.<br><br>
Regards<br><br>
On Sun, May 31, 2015 at 5:33 PM, Alan Greenberg
<<a href="mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca">alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca</a>
> wrote:<br>
<dl>
<dd>I thought that this was clear from the teleconferences, but I guess
not.<br><br>
<dd>The concept of having legal status to allow, in the extreme, court
action, also brings the possibility of action against legal counterpart
of the AC/SO. ANY such provisions REQUIRE that ICANN indemnify and cover
all costs associated with these rights. If we cannot get that written
into the Bylaws and binding, all such "enforceability" rights
are not a possibility.<br><br>
<dd>And to be clear, yes, ICANN would have to indemnify us (individuals
and AC/SOs) for all costs involved in suing ICANN (that is a common
clause in some contracts).<br><br>
<dd>Alan<br><br>
<br>
<dd>At 30/05/2015 10:04 PM, Alan Greenberg wrote:<br>
<dl>
<dd>The ALAC and IANA-Issues meetings last week brought a lot of clarity
to the position of At-Large with respect the CCWG-Accountability
Proposals.<br><br>
<dd>One area where participants seemed to hold varying opinions was to
what extent the new accountability measures need to be
"enforceable".<br><br>
<dd>For a power given to the community to be enforceable, the community
or its representatives ultimately need to be able to go to court if ICANN
(ie the ICANN Board) does not honor the communities directives. That
doesn't mean that anyone WILL sue, but the right and therefore the
possibility is there.<br><br>
<dd>Currently, we have no such right. Although there have been numerous
times where parts of the community (at times large parts) have been
dissatisfied with Board action, it is not clear that IF we had the
planned powers at that time, would we have used them.<br><br>
<dd>In a typical case, although some parts of the community may be
dissatisfied, others were delighted with the decision. In a case such as
the creation of "digital archery" to address the order in which
new gTLD applications would be processed, pretty much everyone was
dissatisfied, but it is far from clear it was an issue that warranted
extreme action.<br><br>
<dd>If there is no formal enforceability, then we would rely on good
faith and trust to address points of contention. In the case of failure,
most parties seem to agree that removal of the Board (or selected parts
of it) must be fully enforceable.<br><br>
<dd>The current CCWG proposal calls for COMPLETE enforceability. This
implies certain structural changes.<br><br>
<dd>Here are several questions. This message is also being sent to the
IANA Issues list. Only one reply is needed. Please reply by Monday if at
all possible.<br><br>
<dd>1. Do you believe that failing anything else, we must have the
ability to remove parts of or all of the Board?<br><br>
<dd>2. With the exception of Board member removal, do we need legal
enforceability of can we rely on good faith (and Board member removal if
you supported that).<br><br>
<dd>3. If the final CCWG proposal calls for full legal enforceability, is
that sufficient reason for the ALAC to not ratify it?<br><br>
<dd>Alan<br><br>
</dl><br>
<dd>_______________________________________________<br>
<dd>Iana-issues mailing list<br>
<dd><a href="mailto:Iana-issues@atlarge-lists.icann.org">
Iana-issues@atlarge-lists.icann.org</a><br>
<dd>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/iana-issues" eudora="autourl">
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/iana-issues</a><br><br>
</dl><br><br>
<br>
-- <br>
------------------------------------------------------------------------<br>
<dl>
<dd><font color="#888888">Seun Ojedeji,<br>
<dd>Federal University Oye-Ekiti<br>
<dd>web:
<a href="http://www.fuoye.edu.ng">http://www.fuoye.edu.ng</a><br>
<dd>Mobile: <a href="??">+2348035233535</a><br>
<dd>alt email:<a href="http://goog_1872880453">
</a><a href="mailto:seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng">
seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng</a></i><br><br>
<dl>
<dd>The key to understanding is humility - my view !<br>
</font><br>
</dl>
</dl></blockquote></body>
</html>