Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Concern with Contract Co.
In Frankfurt we used the term "entity" as if it was something other than some for of company or corporation. We have now replaced it with "corporation". Others assure me that a corporation is possible with no Board or members or owners or shareholders or officers or bank account, but I have yet to fully understand how this works. I will be addressing some of this in my comments, hopefully later tonight. Alan At 28/11/2014 06:32 PM, Greg Shatan wrote:
Olivier,
I'm not sure exactly what you mean by the "configuration" of Contract Co. We certainly have discussed the "form" the entity would take, i.e., a nonprofit corporation. Place of incorporation has not been significantly discussed in recent days, though we had a number of email exchanges and some discussion of jurisdiction earlier in a variety of contexts.
Greg
On Fri, Nov 28, 2014 at 6:19 PM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <<mailto:ocl@gih.com>ocl@gih.com> wrote:
On 28/11/2014 16:36, Milton L Mueller wrote:
From: <mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org>cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Bertrand de La Chapelle
Is the idea of a contract Co. a done deal? Establishing any organization with whatever limited staff is usually a recipe for its growth in time.
MM: The idea that there should be a contracting entity separate from ICANN is, I believe, a done deal. It reflects some of the principles we agreed on (such as separability) and the general agreement that, as the draft proposal says,
âThe current arrangements provided by the NTIA for the oversight and accountability of the IANA Functions are generally satisfactory and the objective of the CWG is to replicate these as faithfully as possibleâ
This is not at all how I understood it. The discussion on whether the "contracting entity" should be a contract co. or something else has never been touched - certainly no alternatives have been seriously considered.
MM: On the other hand, whether the specific configuration of the Contract Co. is optimal for achieving those purposes could still be open. I would say is still open to _modification_; any modification that accomplishes the agreed objectives but avoids any problems that might arise would be welcomed by the CWG I imagine.
The configuration of the Contract Co. has not been discussed either. We know what functions should be undertaken and what broad characteristics would be needed. No discussion of jurisdiction nor configuration of the entity has been done except on RFP4 call today where we started to touch on it.
Kind regards,
Olivier
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list <mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org>CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
--
Gregory S. Shatan ï Abelman Frayne & Schwab
666 Third Avenue ï New York, NY 10017-5621
Direct 212-885-9253 | Main 212-949-9022
Fax 212-949-9190 | Cell 917-816-6428
<mailto:gsshatan@lawabel.com>gsshatan@lawabel.com
ICANN-related: <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>gregshatanipc@gmail.com
www.lawabel.com _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
Alan, That is why I suggested on this week’s call that we should get some independent legal experts to give us advice and that we should start that process right away. Chuck From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg Sent: Friday, November 28, 2014 6:42 PM To: Greg Shatan; Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Concern with Contract Co. In Frankfurt we used the term "entity" as if it was something other than some for of company or corporation. We have now replaced it with "corporation". Others assure me that a corporation is possible with no Board or members or owners or shareholders or officers or bank account, but I have yet to fully understand how this works. I will be addressing some of this in my comments, hopefully later tonight. Alan At 28/11/2014 06:32 PM, Greg Shatan wrote: Olivier, I'm not sure exactly what you mean by the "configuration" of Contract Co. We certainly have discussed the "form" the entity would take, i.e., a nonprofit corporation. Place of incorporation has not been significantly discussed in recent days, though we had a number of email exchanges and some discussion of jurisdiction earlier in a variety of contexts. Greg On Fri, Nov 28, 2014 at 6:19 PM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com<mailto:ocl@gih.com>> wrote: On 28/11/2014 16:36, Milton L Mueller wrote: From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org> [ mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Bertrand de La Chapelle Is the idea of a contract Co. a done deal? Establishing any organization with whatever limited staff is usually a recipe for its growth in time. MM: The idea that there should be a contracting entity separate from ICANN is, I believe, a done deal. It reflects some of the principles we agreed on (such as separability) and the general agreement that, as the draft proposal says, “The current arrangements provided by the NTIA for the oversight and accountability of the IANA Functions are generally satisfactory and the objective of the CWG is to replicate these as faithfully as possible†This is not at all how I understood it. The discussion on whether the "contracting entity" should be a contract co. or something else has never been touched - certainly no alternatives have been seriously considered. MM: On the other hand, whether the specific configuration of the Contract Co. is optimal for achieving those purposes could still be open. I would say is still open to _modification_; any modification that accomplishes the agreed objectives but avoids any problems that might arise would be welcomed by the CWG I imagine. The configuration of the Contract Co. has not been discussed either. We know what functions should be undertaken and what broad characteristics would be needed. No discussion of jurisdiction nor configuration of the entity has been done except on RFP4 call today where we started to touch on it. Kind regards, Olivier _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship -- Gregory S. Shatan ï Abelman Frayne & Schwab 666 Third Avenue ï New York, NY 10017-5621 Direct 212-885-9253 | Main 212-949-9022 Fax 212-949-9190 | Cell 917-816-6428 gsshatan@lawabel.com<mailto:gsshatan@lawabel.com> ICANN-related: gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> www.lawabel.com<http://www.lawabel.com/> _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
Indeed and I had no objection to that. But at the moment, we are running blind. -- Sent from my mobile. Please excuse brevity and typos. On November 28, 2014 11:24:58 PM EST, "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com> wrote:
Alan,
That is why I suggested on this week’s call that we should get some independent legal experts to give us advice and that we should start that process right away.
Chuck
From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg Sent: Friday, November 28, 2014 6:42 PM To: Greg Shatan; Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Concern with Contract Co.
In Frankfurt we used the term "entity" as if it was something other than some for of company or corporation. We have now replaced it with "corporation". Others assure me that a corporation is possible with no Board or members or owners or shareholders or officers or bank account, but I have yet to fully understand how this works.
I will be addressing some of this in my comments, hopefully later tonight.
Alan
At 28/11/2014 06:32 PM, Greg Shatan wrote:
Olivier,
I'm not sure exactly what you mean by the "configuration" of Contract Co. We certainly have discussed the "form" the entity would take, i.e., a nonprofit corporation. Place of incorporation has not been significantly discussed in recent days, though we had a number of email exchanges and some discussion of jurisdiction earlier in a variety of contexts.
Greg
On Fri, Nov 28, 2014 at 6:19 PM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com<mailto:ocl@gih.com>> wrote: On 28/11/2014 16:36, Milton L Mueller wrote:
From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org> [ mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Bertrand de La Chapelle Is the idea of a contract Co. a done deal? Establishing any organization with whatever limited staff is usually a recipe for its growth in time.
MM: The idea that there should be a contracting entity separate from ICANN is, I believe, a done deal. It reflects some of the principles we agreed on (such as separability) and the general agreement that, as the draft proposal says, “The current arrangements provided by the NTIA for the oversight and accountability of the IANA Functions are generally satisfactory and the objective of the CWG is to replicate these as faithfully as possibleâ€
This is not at all how I understood it. The discussion on whether the "contracting entity" should be a contract co. or something else has never been touched - certainly no alternatives have been seriously considered.
MM: On the other hand, whether the specific configuration of the Contract Co. is optimal for achieving those purposes could still be open. I would say is still open to _modification_; any modification that accomplishes the agreed objectives but avoids any problems that might arise would be welcomed by the CWG I imagine.
The configuration of the Contract Co. has not been discussed either. We know what functions should be undertaken and what broad characteristics would be needed. No discussion of jurisdiction nor configuration of the entity has been done except on RFP4 call today where we started to touch on it. Kind regards, Olivier _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
--
Gregory S. Shatan ï Abelman Frayne & Schwab
666 Third Avenue ï New York, NY 10017-5621
Direct 212-885-9253 | Main 212-949-9022
Fax 212-949-9190 | Cell 917-816-6428
gsshatan@lawabel.com<mailto:gsshatan@lawabel.com>
ICANN-related: gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>
www.lawabel.com<http://www.lawabel.com/> _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
I would hardly say that we are running blind. I've been practicing law for 28 years, and I've been trying to share what I know in as objective/coordinator-like way as possible. We have other other lawyers on the committee as well. In any event, the basic concepts are fairly straightforward until we get fairly far into the subject. The basic high level concepts can be set out in a couple of paragraphs "Entity" is generally used, and I believe fairly clearly was used in this instance, to refer to organizations with legal standing/existence (or "legal personality," as I've also seen it called in European circles). This embraces corporations, limited liability corporations, nonprofit corporations, partnerships (general, limited, limited liability, etc.), trusts, estates, etc. So, it is merely a generic term (in the traditional sense) that embraces a corporate entity amongst other types of entities. Entities can sue and be sued, own property, enter into contracts, etc. -- things that a committee (like our own) cannot do. In short, a corporation is a type of legal entity (but a committee is not) and references to entities would include corporations (but not committees). As far as the basics of corporate configuration, at least in the US and other jurisdictions that I am familiar with. For-profit corporations have owners; this ownership is reflected through the issuance of shares, so the owners can also be called shareholders. Nonprofit corporations cannot have owners (except that in certain jurisdictions a nonprofit corporation can own a subsidiary that is also a nonprofit corporation). A corporation may be formed by a single incorporator, but is generally required to put a board in place (and by laws, as well). The minimum board size is usually 3. The minimum number of officers is also typically 3 (President, Vice President, and Secretary/Treasurer), but these can (but need not) be the same people as the 3 directors. A corporation doesn't need to have a bank account (unless it has money or needs to send or receive money, in which case it should have an account). I'm not aware of any way for a corporation to carry on business without directors or officers. However, at least in the case of nonprofits, the officers do not need to be employees of the corporation or remunerated in any way (for example, I am the Vice President and a Member of the Board of the Columbia Summer Winds, Inc., a New York nonprofit corporation, but I am not an employee or paid in any way). Also, there are corporate service companies that provide disinterested directors as a service to limited purpose companies that need directors as a formality, so that might be what your source was thinking about. I hope this helps. Greg (Caveat: this is not legal advice, in the sense of advice that would tend to form a lawyer/client relationship). On Fri, Nov 28, 2014 at 11:44 PM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote:
Indeed and I had no objection to that. But at the moment, we are running blind. -- Sent from my mobile. Please excuse brevity and typos.
On November 28, 2014 11:24:58 PM EST, "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com> wrote:
Alan,
That is why I suggested on this week’s call that we should get some independent legal experts to give us advice and that we should start that process right away.
Chuck
*From:* cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Alan Greenberg *Sent:* Friday, November 28, 2014 6:42 PM *To:* Greg Shatan; Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond *Cc:* cwg-stewardship@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Concern with Contract Co.
In Frankfurt we used the term "entity" as if it was something other than some for of company or corporation. We have now replaced it with "corporation". Others assure me that a corporation is possible with no Board or members or owners or shareholders or officers or bank account, but I have yet to fully understand how this works.
I will be addressing some of this in my comments, hopefully later tonight.
Alan
At 28/11/2014 06:32 PM, Greg Shatan wrote:
Olivier,
I'm not sure exactly what you mean by the "configuration" of Contract Co. We certainly have discussed the "form" the entity would take, i.e., a nonprofit corporation. Place of incorporation has not been significantly discussed in recent days, though we had a number of email exchanges and some discussion of jurisdiction earlier in a variety of contexts.
Greg
On Fri, Nov 28, 2014 at 6:19 PM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com> wrote:
On 28/11/2014 16:36, Milton L Mueller wrote:
From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [ mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org <cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Bertrand de La Chapelle
Is the idea of a contract Co. a done deal? Establishing any organization with whatever limited staff is usually a recipe for its growth in time.
MM: The idea that there should be a contracting entity separate from ICANN is, I believe, a done deal. It reflects some of the principles we agreed on (such as separability) and the general agreement that, as the draft proposal says,
“The current arrangements provided by the NTIA for the oversight and accountability of the IANA Functions are generally satisfactory and the objective of the CWG is to replicate these as faithfully as possibleâ€
This is not at all how I understood it. The discussion on whether the "contracting entity" should be a contract co. or something else has never been touched - certainly no alternatives have been seriously considered.
MM: On the other hand, whether the specific configuration of the Contract Co. is optimal for achieving those purposes could still be open. I would say is still open to _modification_; any modification that accomplishes the agreed objectives but avoids any problems that might arise would be welcomed by the CWG I imagine.
The configuration of the Contract Co. has not been discussed either. We know what functions should be undertaken and what broad characteristics would be needed. No discussion of jurisdiction nor configuration of the entity has been done except on RFP4 call today where we started to touch on it.
Kind regards,
Olivier
_______________________________________________
CWG-Stewardship mailing list
CWG-Stewardship@icann.org
-- *Gregory S. Shatan **ï* *Abelman Frayne & Schwab* *666 Third Avenue **ï** New York, NY 10017-5621* *Direct* 212-885-9253 *| **Main* 212-949-9022 *Fax* 212-949-9190 *|* *Cell *917-816-6428 *gsshatan@lawabel.com <gsshatan@lawabel.com>* *ICANN-related: gregshatanipc@gmail.com <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> * *www.lawabel.com <http://www.lawabel.com/>*
And now that you have shared that, those of us who have not practiced law for 28 years are a bit less blind. ;-) -- Sent from my mobile. Please excuse brevity and typos. On November 29, 2014 12:52:27 AM EST, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
I would hardly say that we are running blind. I've been practicing law for 28 years, and I've been trying to share what I know in as objective/coordinator-like way as possible. We have other other lawyers on the committee as well. In any event, the basic concepts are fairly straightforward until we get fairly far into the subject. The basic high level concepts can be set out in a couple of paragraphs
"Entity" is generally used, and I believe fairly clearly was used in this instance, to refer to organizations with legal standing/existence (or "legal personality," as I've also seen it called in European circles). This embraces corporations, limited liability corporations, nonprofit corporations, partnerships (general, limited, limited liability, etc.), trusts, estates, etc. So, it is merely a generic term (in the traditional sense) that embraces a corporate entity amongst other types of entities. Entities can sue and be sued, own property, enter into contracts, etc. -- things that a committee (like our own) cannot do. In short, a corporation is a type of legal entity (but a committee is not) and references to entities would include corporations (but not committees).
As far as the basics of corporate configuration, at least in the US and other jurisdictions that I am familiar with. For-profit corporations have owners; this ownership is reflected through the issuance of shares, so the owners can also be called shareholders. Nonprofit corporations cannot have owners (except that in certain jurisdictions a nonprofit corporation can own a subsidiary that is also a nonprofit corporation). A corporation may be formed by a single incorporator, but is generally required to put a board in place (and by laws, as well). The minimum board size is usually 3. The minimum number of officers is also typically 3 (President, Vice President, and Secretary/Treasurer), but these can (but need not) be the same people as the 3 directors. A corporation doesn't need to have a bank account (unless it has money or needs to send or receive money, in which case it should have an account). I'm not aware of any way for a corporation to carry on business without directors or officers. However, at least in the case of nonprofits, the officers do not need to be employees of the corporation or remunerated in any way (for example, I am the Vice President and a Member of the Board of the Columbia Summer Winds, Inc., a New York nonprofit corporation, but I am not an employee or paid in any way). Also, there are corporate service companies that provide disinterested directors as a service to limited purpose companies that need directors as a formality, so that might be what your source was thinking about.
I hope this helps.
Greg
(Caveat: this is not legal advice, in the sense of advice that would tend to form a lawyer/client relationship).
On Fri, Nov 28, 2014 at 11:44 PM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote:
Indeed and I had no objection to that. But at the moment, we are running blind. -- Sent from my mobile. Please excuse brevity and typos.
On November 28, 2014 11:24:58 PM EST, "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com> wrote:
Alan,
That is why I suggested on this week’s call that we should get some independent legal experts to give us advice and that we should start
that
process right away.
Chuck
*From:* cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Alan Greenberg *Sent:* Friday, November 28, 2014 6:42 PM *To:* Greg Shatan; Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond *Cc:* cwg-stewardship@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Concern with Contract Co.
In Frankfurt we used the term "entity" as if it was something other than some for of company or corporation. We have now replaced it with "corporation". Others assure me that a corporation is possible with no Board or members or owners or shareholders or officers or bank account, but I have yet to fully understand how this works.
I will be addressing some of this in my comments, hopefully later tonight.
Alan
At 28/11/2014 06:32 PM, Greg Shatan wrote:
Olivier,
I'm not sure exactly what you mean by the "configuration" of Contract Co. We certainly have discussed the "form" the entity would take, i.e., a nonprofit corporation. Place of incorporation has not been significantly discussed in recent days, though we had a number of email exchanges and some discussion of jurisdiction earlier in a variety of contexts.
Greg
On Fri, Nov 28, 2014 at 6:19 PM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com> wrote:
On 28/11/2014 16:36, Milton L Mueller wrote:
From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [ mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org <cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Bertrand de La Chapelle
Is the idea of a contract Co. a done deal? Establishing any organization with whatever limited staff is usually a recipe for its growth in time.
MM: The idea that there should be a contracting entity separate from ICANN is, I believe, a done deal. It reflects some of the principles we agreed on (such as separability) and the general agreement that, as the draft proposal says,
“The current arrangements provided by the NTIA for the oversight and accountability of the IANA Functions are generally satisfactory and the objective of the CWG is to replicate these as faithfully as possibleâ€
This is not at all how I understood it. The discussion on whether the "contracting entity" should be a contract co. or something else has never been touched - certainly no alternatives have been seriously considered.
MM: On the other hand, whether the specific configuration of the Contract Co. is optimal for achieving those purposes could still be open. I would say is still open to _modification_; any modification that accomplishes the agreed objectives but avoids any problems that might arise would be welcomed by the CWG I imagine.
The configuration of the Contract Co. has not been discussed either. We know what functions should be undertaken and what broad characteristics would be needed. No discussion of jurisdiction nor configuration of the entity has been done except on RFP4 call today where we started to touch on it.
Kind regards,
Olivier
_______________________________________________
CWG-Stewardship mailing list
CWG-Stewardship@icann.org
--
*Gregory S. Shatan **ï* *Abelman Frayne & Schwab*
*666 Third Avenue **ï** New York, NY 10017-5621*
*Direct* 212-885-9253 *| **Main* 212-949-9022
*Fax* 212-949-9190 *|* *Cell *917-816-6428
*gsshatan@lawabel.com <gsshatan@lawabel.com>*
*ICANN-related: gregshatanipc@gmail.com <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> *
*www.lawabel.com <http://www.lawabel.com/>*
participants (3)
-
Alan Greenberg -
Gomes, Chuck -
Greg Shatan