Thanks Holly and Rosemary for this excellent memo. It proposes a far better way of dealing with problematic "Member Powers" than my suggestion of incorporating the Board a decision-maker. Triggering co-decision for any of the "unwanted" powers with the Board is consistent with the approach we already proposed for fundamental Bylaw changes, and avoids the contamination of the separation of powers my suggestion would have made. I therefore withdraw my suggestion, and note with a smile that I wish I'd read *all* my email before replying to any of it! Finally: I would ask Board members to share their thoughts about how this memo conflicts with the apparent JD advice. best Jordan On 3 October 2015 at 08:38, Gregory, Holly <holly.gregory@sidley.com> wrote:
Thomas, Mathieu and Leon and CCWG,,
In addition to slides comparing the Sole Member, Sole Designator and Board Proposal from last week (which we understand did not get posted yet) , we are providing a memo as requested in LA that discusses how the statutory rights of a member can be constrained in the Sole Member model.
Kind regards, Holly and Rosemary
*HOLLY* *GREGORY* Partner
*Sidley Austin LLP* +1 212 839 5853 holly.gregory@sidley.com
**************************************************************************************************** This e-mail is sent by a law firm and may contain information that is privileged or confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete the e-mail and any attachments and notify us immediately.
****************************************************************************************************
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
-- Jordan Carter Chief Executive *InternetNZ* +64-4-495-2118 (office) | +64-21-442-649 (mob) Email: jordan@internetnz.net.nz Skype: jordancarter Web: www.internetnz.nz *A better world through a better Internet *