Maybe we are getting smarter J. Beckwith Burr Neustar, Inc. / Deputy General Counsel and Chief Privacy Officer 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20006 Office: + 1.202.533.2932 Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 / becky.burr@neustar.biz<mailto:becky.burr@neustar.biz> / www.neustar.biz From: Roelof Meijer <Roelof.Meijer@sidn.nl<mailto:Roelof.Meijer@sidn.nl>> Date: Tuesday, July 7, 2015 at 9:56 AM To: Accountability Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] FW: member organization and single membership structure Interesting, we’re back on the subject of a single member structure. It was written off before Cheers, Roelof From: <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Roelof Meijer <roelof.meijer@sidn.nl<mailto:roelof.meijer@sidn.nl>> Date: woensdag 22 april 2015 15:56 To: "avri@acm.org<mailto:avri@acm.org>" <avri@acm.org<mailto:avri@acm.org>>, "accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>" <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] member organization and single membership structure Hi Avri, The sole membership construction, is a possibility described in the legal document in several places: the comments by the legal experts on the PCCWG mechanism template (page 64) and the Community Council mechanism template (page 69). I sent several emails about it to the WP1 list, suggesting to look in the possibility as indeed it would not necessitate every SO and AC to become a legal entity. And, as you do, suggesting: "make the „Community Council” the sole member of ICANN (and thus a formal legal entity), consisting of either the SO and AC chairs or SO/AC elected representatives” (from an email of 14 April). And I would think it would enable the SO’s and AC’s themselves to continue appointing directors, as they do now. But that’s just guessing, based on the fact that the SO’s and AC’s themselves would not change status Best, Roelof From: Avri Doria <avri@acm.org<mailto:avri@acm.org>> Organization: Technicalities Reply-To: "avri@acm.org<mailto:avri@acm.org>" <avri@acm.org<mailto:avri@acm.org>> Date: woensdag 22 april 2015 15:09 To: "accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>" <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] member organization and single membership structure Hi, On 22-Apr-15 08:26, Roelof Meijer wrote: 2) What I find quite frustrating is that I have raised the point of the possibility (or not) of a single membership structure – an option mentioned by Sidley and Adler & Colving in their legal advice – several times by now without getting any substantial reaction. I am not aware that any serious effort to investigate this has led to a formal write-off. In some way that might lessen the complexity of making most SOAC an individual legal entity. How would it work? Would we continue to appoint Directors just as we do now? Or would there need to be some sort of Members Council that took actions, working simliarly to the the executive board or community council idea? thanks avri ________________________________ [Avast logo]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.avast.com_&d=AwMGaQ&...> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. www.avast.com<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.avast.com_&d=AwMGaQ&...>