I am forwarding this email into the Legal Subteam for discussion and possible referral to counsel.
In the "suggested text," which I've pasted in below, I believe the text that I have highlighted and bolded is contrary to the advice we have received from Sidley/Adler and in some cases may inadvertently misstate that advice. Rather than pick it apart here, I think it makes more sense to discuss this with Sidley/Adler and then bring it back to the full list or the next full meeting if need be.
Greg
SUGGESTED TEXT
f) Designators are a construct in California law that can achieve some of the powers proposed below - As ICANN's SOs/ACs struture is consistent with this model, "the selection and removal of Board members" and "the approval or blocking of changes to bylaws" can be achieved by changing the ByLaws to define the role of SOs/ACs as designators, without the need to organise unincorporated association. But they cannot reliably deliver other aspects of the set of powers the CCWG believes the community needs, such as statutory power for full board dismissal and ability to have legal standing in court for enforcement of rights, if it is to fully hold ICANN to account.
Crucially, in the view of our counsel, to have dismissal of the entire board and for legal enforcement of rights in court, would require some additional contractual relationships between SOs/ACs and ICANN, which would also oblige SOs and ACs to establish themselves into unincorporated associations, so some of the perceived simplicity compared with the membership model isn't actually achievable.