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

A better world through a better Internet