Ed,

I'm not following the CCWG list daily, but I recall ICANN legal asking if
the power to file derivative lawsuits could be constrained in some fashion?
I.e., could that power be limited to certain scenarios. Maybe this is a way
to achieve judicial option you seek? Was this question asked, and if so,
did CCWG receive an answer?

-- Brenden


On Tue, May 5, 2015 at 11:33 AM, Edward Morris <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> On Tue, May 5, 2015 at 4:04 PM, Paul Rosenzweig <
> [log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>> Isn’t the real problem here that there is no way of knowing, ex ante,
>> whether the mechanisms will actually work?  I have spent a lot of time on
>> the IRP and if it works as I hope it will, it would be a strong bulwark
>> against mission creep – but what if it doesn’t?
>>
>>
>>
>> Part of me wants to say that the formal transition should be delayed 5
>> years until ICANN has lived under an implemented transition system and has
>> adequate experience.  I fear, however, that such a solution is untenable,
>> politically and practically.  We must, I think, take a leap (of faith?) …
>>
>> Paul
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Paul,
>
> Agreed. It really is a crap shoot of sorts. The current accountability
> mechanisms actually look pretty good on paper - assuming good will on the
> part of all parties. What we're trying to do now is acknowledge that self
> interest often trumps good will and put in more defined and specified
> procedures with a number of cross checks. Will it work? As you point out,
> no one knows - which is why I find the power of the derivative lawsuit
> contained in the statutory membership model so attractive. If all else
> fails that should give individual SOs/ACs a shot at righting a wronged
> ship. Will it work? I guess that would be my leap of faith. I'm not sure
> I'm willing to take that leap without that final judicial option.
>
> Ed
>
>
>