<html><head><meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body dir="auto"><div>Dear All</div><div>Nom Com became a puzzle and perhaps mystery. We need to seriously think how to overcome all problem that </div><div>Were discussed for hours without a convincing solution</div><div>Kavouss <br><br>Sent from my iPhone</div><div><br>On 25 Apr 2015, at 01:48, Kieren McCarthy <<a href="mailto:kierenmccarthy@gmail.com">kierenmccarthy@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br><br></div><blockquote type="cite"><div>
<div>The legal team specifically put a question mark over Nomcom as well as a note about it.</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>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.</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>There is no good reason to continue to write it into ICANN's makeup.</div>
<div><br></div>
<div><br></div>
<div>Kieren</div>
<div class="mailbox_signature">
<br>-<br>[sent through phone]</div>
<br><br><div class="gmail_quote"><p>On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 3:51 PM, Avri Doria <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:avri@acm.org" target="_blank">avri@acm.org</a>></span> wrote:<br></p><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;"><div>
Hi,<br><br>
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.<br><br>
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?
<br><br>
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?<br><br><br>
thanks<br><br><br>
avrl<br><br>
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. <br><br><br><hr style="border:none; color:#909090; background-color:#B0B0B0; height: 1px; width: 99%;"><table style="border-collapse:collapse;border:none;"><tbody><tr><td style="border:none;padding:0px 15px 0px 8px">
<a href="http://www.avast.com/">
<img border="0" src="http://static.avast.com/emails/avast-mail-stamp.png" alt="Avast logo"></a>
</td>
<td>
<p style="color:#3d4d5a; font-family:"Calibri","Verdana","Arial","Helvetica"; font-size:12pt;">
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
<br><a href="http://www.avast.com/">www.avast.com</a>
</p>
</td>
</tr></tbody></table><br></div></blockquote></div><br></div></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><div><span>_______________________________________________</span><br><span>Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list</span><br><span><a href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a></span><br><span><a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a></span><br></div></blockquote></body></html>