<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">Chris,</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">That is essentially my understanding as well, except that as noted before a UA needs two legal persons "associating" with each other in order to exist. </div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">Basically, the UA (acting under the instructions of the "new chair") is the legal entity that enforces its own bylaws. No other legal entity is needed. </div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">Court proceedings would not necessarily be needed if there's a "changing of the guard." If an old chair "refused to stand aside," the simplest course of action is for everyone to simply ignore them, as being no longer legitimate (or conceivably even barking mad). (Of course, there could still be court proceedings, e.g., if ICANN or the other Members weren't recognizing the actions of the UA run by the "new chair" or everyone just wanted a court order to sort it all out. Conceivably, the barking mad old chair could also initiate court proceedings, challenging the new chair and seeking an order that the old chair is still the real chair. (All of this litigation is a technical possibility; I tend to doubt that it would ever happen.)</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">This probably indicates that each UA should have at least three members, so there is not a deadlock if one of two members goes rogue. With 3 members, you would need at least two to go rogue together, which again is technically possible, but even less likely than a single rogue.</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">Greg</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 1:13 AM, Chris Disspain <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:ceo@auda.org.au" target="_blank">ceo@auda.org.au</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div style="word-wrap:break-word"><span style="font-family:'Verdana';font-size:13px;color:rgb(102,102,102)">Jordan,<div><br></div><div><span class=""><blockquote type="cite"><div dir="ltr"><div>that the only way they can make decisions is on the resolution of the relevant SO or AC council.</div></div></blockquote><br></span><div>In the same way that one needs a legal entity to be able to force ICANN to abide by its bylaws in a court, one needs a legal entity to force the UA to abide by its rules. So although the rules of the UA may say that it can only make decisions based on the resolution of the relevant SO (just like ICANN’s fundamental bylaws will say ICANN can only do X if the SOs/ACs agree) the SO cannot itself enforce that rule.</div><div><br></div><div>As I understand it, since the SO would not be a legal entity, the SO cannot make the UA abide by its rules. Thus, using the simplest case as an example, where the UA has a single member (the Chair of the SO as Alan has suggested) and that member started to not abide by the rules then the SO would need to use an agreed mechanism to replace the Chair as member. And if the Chair refused to stand aside as member then the ‘new chair’ would have to bring proceedings against the him/her and have a court order that the the ‘correct’ member is the ‘new chair’. </div><div><br></div><div>I think I’ve got that right but stand to be corrected.</div><div><br></div><div><div>
<p><br></p>
<p>Cheers,</p>
<p><br></p>
<p>Chris</p>
</div><div><div class="h5">
<br><div><blockquote type="cite"><div>On 19 May 2015, at 14:56 , Jordan Carter <<a href="mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz" target="_blank">jordan@internetnz.net.nz</a>> wrote:</div><br><div><div dir="ltr">hi all, hi Alan<div><br></div><div>I think these are exactly the sorts of questions we do need to unpick.</div><div><br></div><div>My own preference is that the UAs are almost total shells - that the only way they can make decisions is on the resolution of the relevant SO or AC council. That way, there's no need for "Representatives" to be appointed. The lawyers have confirmed that this approach works at a high level.</div><div><br></div><div>It avoids all the concerns about who needs to be chosen etc.</div><div><br></div><div>I really hope we can all unpick these issues to find the best model, one that is both enforceable, clear and simple. I'm confident we'll get there. We just have to wear the fact that the set of changes we are contemplating is going to be complicated to implement. It's once we get there that it has to be simple and clean.</div><div><br></div><div>cheers</div><div>Jordan</div><div><br></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On 19 May 2015 at 16:03, Alan Greenberg <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca" target="_blank">alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">I believe I understand the issues regarding UAs as shadow organizations for the AC/SOs. Although I still have strong reservations and am not sure we need the legal enforceability that they provide, I am willing to accept that they will work.<br>
<br>
But I also feel that using such structures will be difficult for the overall community to understand (on an ongoing basis).<br>
<br>
I have a simple question. Instead of having a UA and the AC/SO naming people to be their formal representatives in the UA, why can we not simply have the AC/SO Chair or their Delegate(s) be the Members or Designators. These people have legal status, so why do we need the UAs?<br>
<br>
I will not be able to join the call in a few hours, but will listen to the recording later in the day.<br>
<br>
Alan<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org" target="_blank">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a><br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a><br>
</blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><div><br></div>-- <br><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr">Jordan Carter<br><br>Chief Executive <br><b>InternetNZ</b><br><br>04 495 2118 (office) | <a href="tel:%2B64%2021%20442%20649" value="+6421442649" target="_blank">+64 21 442 649</a> (mob)<br><a href="mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz" target="_blank">jordan@internetnz.net.nz</a> <br>Skype: jordancarter<br><br><i>A better world through a better Internet </i><br><br></div></div></div></div>
</div>
_______________________________________________<br>Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list<br><a href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org" target="_blank">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a><br><a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a><br></div></blockquote></div><br></div></div></div></div></span></div><br>_______________________________________________<br>
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a><br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div>