[CCWG-ACCT] FW: Regarding GAC participation

[Seun Ojedeji]

Hello Malcolm,

Are you certain there is no lega person-hood required because that section
referenced by James seem to imply that. I quote a specific section below:

"... the Community Mechanism as Sole Member Model would be a *legal person*
created through the ICANN Bylaws as an unincorporated association...."

Regards
Sent from my Asus Zenfone2
Kindly excuse brevity and typos.
On 1 Oct 2015 15:39, "Malcolm Hutty" <malcolm at linx.net> wrote:

>
>
> On 01/10/2015 15:27, James Gannon wrote:
> > Kavouss,
> > I refer you to paragraph 306 of our 2nd draft proposal which states:
> >
> >     As required by law, the Sole Member in the Community Mechanism as
> >     Sole Member Model would be a legal person created through the ICANN
> >     Bylaws as an unincorporated association. The Community Mechanism as
> >     Sole Member Model would rely on direct participation by SOs and ACs
> >     in this sole member for exercise of community powers but would not
> >     require any of them to have legal personhood. The Sole Member would
> >     have no officers or directors and no assets.
> >
> > So it is clear that we have not dropped unincorporated association
> > totally as the SMCM would be required to be an unincorporated
> association.
> >
> > I hope that makes things clearer as to what I am referring to.
>
> I think there is a simple miscommunication here.
>
> Our first reference model was Empowered SOACs as Unincorporated
> Associations. This would require turning the SOACs into UAs. That was
> problematic. We dropped it. It's not coming back.
>
> Our current reference model is the Single Member. This wouldn't require
> the SOACs to change at all. Californian law may deem the Single Member
> to be considered a UA in itself, but this is just a matter of statutory
> construction. The Single Member has no registration or reporting
> requirements, no need for officers, directors, assets etc. It is simply
> a legal notion. So there's really no need to focus on the fact that a
> lawyer would construe the Single Member as a UA, because that doesn't
> imply what people would think it implies.
>
>
> --
>             Malcolm Hutty | tel: +44 20 7645 3523
>    Head of Public Affairs | Read the LINX Public Affairs blog
>  London Internet Exchange | http://publicaffairs.linx.net/
>
>                  London Internet Exchange Ltd
>            21-27 St Thomas Street, London SE1 9RY
>
>          Company Registered in England No. 3137929
>        Trinity Court, Trinity Street, Peterborough PE1 1DA
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20151001/75fb8219/attachment.html>