[CCWG-ACCT] Nomcom as a UA - legal question

Kieren McCarthy kierenmccarthy at gmail.com
Fri Apr 24 23:48:41 UTC 2015

The legal team specifically put a question mark over Nomcom as well as a note about it.

I strongly believe that now is the time to pull out the Nomcom from ICANN. It is an anachronism that was created to deal with an issue in a previous incarnation.

There is no good reason to continue to write it into ICANN's makeup.


[sent through phone]

On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 3:51 PM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:

> Hi,
> I am confused as to how this works.  Please forgive my questions.  This
> has less to do with the proposal I made then with trying to understand
> the nature of a UA.  I had not realized until yesterday that the
> membership model was as popular as it has been defined to be.  I had
> also not realized that we were down to membership or designator model as
> our only choices until today.
> What qualifies the Nomcom as an association?  It can't be the people, as
> there is no continuity, except among the staff. and  some overlap in
> chairs as last year's chair, this years' chair and next year's possible
> chair,  sit togehter each year. I guess that  is a bit of natural person
> continuity.  Is that chair thread significant?
> Or is that it is always formed according to same bylaw, even if all of
> the people are different, that is a qualifying mark? Is being a differnt
> instantiation of the same process sufficient to define a UA, even if
> there is no continuity of natural persons?
> thanks
> avrl
> Note: I would have sent this to the legal list, but i never managed to
> get subscribed that one as far as I can tell.
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> http://www.avast.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20150424/597ad072/attachment.html>

More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list