Thanks.

I'll assume it attempts to. Here's what is says:

"The control mechanism for an SO/AC over its unincorporated association could be essentially the same as whatever control mechanisms currently exist to ensure that the SO/ACs do what their participants collectively decide they should do.  For example, if an SO/AC has a chair, that chair could be empowered and directed by the participants in the SO/AC to cause the unincorporated association of that SO/AC to act as directed by the SO/AC to exercise membership or designator rights.  If the chair refused, that chair could presumably be subjected to discipline or removed and replaced under existing procedures within the SO or AC, just as if the chair had refused to take any other action as directed by the SO/AC.  If existing control mechanisms within SO/ACs are insufficient, the SO/AC could modify them to address the weakness."

I refer to the text in bold. I agree. However this does not answer the question, "and what power of enforcement over the UA does the SO or AC have if the UA refuses to act as directed or if it starts to act on its own behalf without direction?".

This is and has been the point I have been making for the last day or so.