[bestbits] Post on ICANN54- Accountability

[farzaneh badii]

Hi Karel,

A very good document that clearly shows how different sole member and
designator models are, is attached. It has been done by the ccwg counsel.

I provide a rough and non-exhaustive summary

1. sole designator lacks some of the statutory rights that sole member has
: for example in amending the bylaws, the power of amendment rests
ultimately in the hands of the board but in sole member it rests in the
hands of the community

2. In many instances, the designator model ultimate power of enforceability
rests in its ability to recall the board. In sole member, the community can
ultimately take ICANN to court. [look at the reconsider/reject changes to
ICANN standard bylaws in the doc.]

3. Sole designator statutory rights are weaker than sole member. for
example it does not have the statutory right of inspection.

4. I am not certain but it seems like legally sole designator power in
rejecting strategic plan and budget plan is limited

All in all, as I said at NCUC meeting sole membership model give us access
to court. in Sole membership model enforcement mechanism is direct
enforcement while in designator model it is indirect, meaning by
threatening to recall the board.

Hope this helps.

On 26 October 2015 at 03:36, Karel Douglas <douglaskarel at gmail.com> wrote:

> Excellent job Aarti.
>
> I still maintain that alot of people are not clear on the different models
> and why one should be prefered over the other. I am one such person. James
> did a great job explaining the models at the NCUC outreach in Dublin for
> which I am deeply thankful.
>
> However It might be useful by way of introduction and/or explanation to
> write a quick sentence about each model so that there can be context to
> your article.I'm sure readers will appreciate it. Otherwise some people may
> not appreciate your critical analysis of the current dilemma.
>
> Keep up the great work.I'm looking forward to further articles.
>
> Warm regards
>
> Karel DOUGLAS
>
> On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 5:07 AM, James Gannon <james at cyberinvasion.net>
> wrote:
>
>> Great summary Aarti and it was a pleasure to meet you in person!
>>
>> -James
>>
>> From: <bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net> on behalf of Aarti Bhavana <
>> aarti.bhavana at nludelhi.ac.in>
>> Reply-To: Aarti Bhavana <aarti.bhavana at nludelhi.ac.in>
>> Date: Friday 23 October 2015 at 10:05 a.m.
>> To: "accountability-cross-community at icann.org" <
>> accountability-cross-community at icann.org>, "NCSG-DISCUSS at listserv.syr.edu"
>> <NCSG-DISCUSS at listserv.syr.edu>, "bestbits at lists.bestbits.net" <
>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>
>> Subject: [bestbits] Post on ICANN54- Accountability
>>
>> Dear All,
>>
>> It was wonderful to meet many of you in Dublin this week. It made my
>> first ICANN meeting a fantastic experience. I have written a short post on
>> my impression of the developments in the accountability proposal. I would
>> love to receive your feedback and suggestions.
>> You can find the post here:
>> https://ccgnludelhi.wordpress.com/2015/10/23/icann54-a-dublin-update/
>>
>> Warm regards,
>> Aarti
>>
>> --
>>
>>
>> Aarti Bhavana | Research Fellow
>> Centre for Communication Governance | National Law University, Delhi | Sector-14,
>> Dwarka, New Delhi - 110078 | Cell: (+91) 965-464-6846 | Fax: (+91)
>> 11-280-34256 | www.ccgdelhi.org . www.ccgtlr.org
>> <http://www.ccgdelhi.org/> . www.nludelhi.ac.in | Twitter: @ccgdelhi
>> <https://twitter.com/CCGDelhi> . @aartibhavana
>> <https://twitter.com/aartibhavana>
>>
>
>


-- 
Farzaneh
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20151025/a3026bc8/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Summary Comparison of Enforcement Mechanisms by Model - Final (00723591x....pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 65821 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20151025/a3026bc8/attachment.pdf>