From: Roelof Meijer <Roelof.Meijer@sidn.nl>
Date: Tuesday, July 7, 2015 at 9:56 AM
To: Accountability Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org>
Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] FW: member organization and single membership structure
Date: Tuesday, July 7, 2015 at 9:56 AM
To: Accountability Community <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> on behalf of Roelof Meijer <roelof.meijer@sidn.nl>
Date: woensdag 22 april 2015 15:56
To: "avri@acm.org" <avri@acm.org>, "accountability-cross-community@icann.org" <accountability-cross-community@icann.org>
Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] member organization and single membership structure
Date: woensdag 22 april 2015 15:56
To: "avri@acm.org" <avri@acm.org>, "accountability-cross-community@icann.org" <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>
Organization: Technicalities
Reply-To: "avri@acm.org" <avri@acm.org>
Date: woensdag 22 april 2015 15:09
To: "accountability-cross-community@icann.org" <accountability-cross-community@icann.org>
Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] member organization and single membership structure
Organization: Technicalities
Reply-To: "avri@acm.org" <avri@acm.org>
Date: woensdag 22 april 2015 15:09
To: "accountability-cross-community@icann.org" <accountability-cross-community@icann.org>
Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] member organization and single membership structure
Hi,
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
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
 |
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. |