hi all, hi Alan

I think these are exactly the sorts of questions we do need to unpick.

My own preference is that the UAs are almost total shells - that the only way they can make decisions is on the resolution of the relevant SO or AC council. That way, there's no need for "Representatives" to be appointed. The lawyers have confirmed that this approach works at a high level.

It avoids all the concerns about who needs to be chosen etc.

I really hope we can all unpick these issues to find the best model, one that is both enforceable, clear and simple. I'm confident we'll get there. We just have to wear the fact that the set of changes we are contemplating is going to be complicated to implement. It's once we get there that it has to be simple and clean.

cheers

Jordan

On 19 May 2015 at 16:03, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote:

I believe I understand the issues regarding UAs as shadow organizations for the AC/SOs. Although I still have strong reservations and am not sure we need the legal enforceability that they provide, I am willing to accept that they will work.

But I also feel that using such structures will be difficult for the overall community to understand (on an ongoing basis).

I have a simple question. Instead of having a UA and the AC/SO naming people to be their formal representatives in the UA, why can we not simply have the AC/SO Chair or their Delegate(s) be the Members or Designators. These people have legal status, so why do we need the UAs?

I will not be able to join the call in a few hours, but will listen to the recording later in the day.

Alan

_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

Jordan Carter

Chief Executive
InternetNZ

04 495 2118 (office) | +64 21 442 649 (mob)
jordan@internetnz.net.nz
Skype: jordancarter

A better world through a better Internet