Hi all,

Avri, in reply:

On 2 May 2015 at 03:26, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org> wrote:

Hi,

A tangent question.

On 30-Apr-15 23:41, Greg Shatan wrote:

Finally, I have to say I disagree with your contention that each SO/ACs would need to become an unincorporated association ("UA") rather than merely create one. Admittedly, the issue of how each SO/AC can control its "alter ego" has not been fully fleshed out. However, I believe this was discussed at some length on the legal sub team call and it seems that between the bylaws of the UA and the charter of the SO/AC there should be very tight control by the SO/AC over any actions of the UA.

As a non-member of the legal sub-team, I am curuious, why wouldn't one of the SOAC want to just become an UA instead of creating an additional entity? What are the legal disadvantages of transforming into an UA? As opposed to being on.

Or has this already been documented in one of the many docs and I just missed it?

I largely agree with Greg, but would add our doctrine of minimal change. Why should we force the SOs and ACs to change how they operate, and force extensive bylaws changes in ICANN to accommodate a change to the legal personality of the SOs and ACs in *all* the work that they do?

There's nothing wrong with the way they act in the current situation, and we haven't examined the implications of such an all-encompassing change....

cheers

Jordan

Jordan Carter

Chief Executive
InternetNZ