[CCWG-Accountability] Regarding Non-profit and public-benefit legal structure
Edward Morris
emorris at milk.toast.net
Wed Jan 7 00:56:46 UTC 2015
Hi Bruce,
I believe it was deliberately set up as public benefit rather than a member
organization - to avoid the situation where the members become limited to
say gTLD registries and registrars and hence it ends up operating primarily
for the benefit of the domain name registration industry.
Sorry, Bruce, this just isn't accurate. Under the California Corporations
Code § 5310(a) a Public Benefits Corporation can chose to 1) have or 2) not
have members. There are California Public Benefit Corporations with members
and California Public Benefit Corporations without members. All are public
benefit corporations with the same responsibility to serve the public. The
differentiation in California law is not between public benefit corporations
and member organisations, as may be inferred from your comment, but between
PBC's and Nonprofit Mutual Benefit Corporations which, likewise, may or may
not have members but are not imbued with the wider social purpose of a PBC.
The Corporate Flexibility Act of 2011 created a new type of corporate
vehicle in California, the California Benefit Corporation, which frankly is
something that if we were operating in an ideal world we might want to
consider. It is designed for for-profit corporations but requires Board
members to consider multiple factors (commonly referred to as "people,
profit and planet") in making decisions and not solely to consider the
institutions provincial best interests in decision making processes.
I'm not sure your view of history is completely accurate. Certainly in
reading Karl Auerbach's archives ( http://www.cavebear.com/cbblog/ ), and
others, one gets the impression that membership was rejected in an attempt
to marginalise those who held differing perspectives from the individuals
perceived to then be running things at ICANN (One L.A. law firm in
particular). I'm not sure anyone would claim the Karl himself, or others
supporting the membership option, at that time were interested in
benefitting the domain name industry. Of course, I'm sure there are
differing views amongst those involved in things at that time, and times
have changed - just wanted to point out that things aren't as cut and dry as
some may wish to present.
Any move away from a public-benefit corporation to a membership corporation
Again, there would be no such move. We would merely change ICANN from being
a PBC without members to being a PBC with members, per California
Corporations Code §5310-§5313. Absolutely no change of corporate type,
merely an internal change within the statutes governing California PBC's.
ICANN would still be a Public Benefit Corporation with the same public
service commitment, merely one with Members.
- would need to carefully consider how to ensure that the members are
reflective of the broader Internet community and don't become limited to a
few members
I am in complete agreement with you here. We need to be creative and
inclusive in creating membership vehicles. There needs to be a place for
anyone and everyone in a new membership based ICANN. Lots of politics, lots
of compromises, but it can be and should be done. We're supposed to be a
BOTTOM UP multi-stakeholder organization. Properly designed, nothing is more
bottom up than an inclusive organisational structure where the Board answers
direct to Members who themselves consist of the diverse, broad and global
internet community. The other option - some sort of appellate board
regulating our current Board - is just more top down in a process whose
legitimacy is based upon it being bottom up.
Kind Regards,
Ed Morris
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20150106/f618fda7/attachment.html>
More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community
mailing list