<html><head><meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body dir="auto"><div>Hi Alan,</div><div><br></div><div>I'm not sure. I am sure that as a resident of the UK I would be uncomfortable being a member of a UA. I've been advised that in this country members of UA's are not shielded from legal liability. I know in Finland, where I received my legal education, members of UA's are expressly jointly and severably liable for a UA's activities.</div><div><br></div><div>Is this a real problem? Likely not. Comity should prevail and I doubt I'd ever be sued. Still this is a volunteer activity and I'm not likely going to be willing to take any chance with my families limited assets. I should note that we all currently may have some exposure from our current ICANN activities. Shell UA's are probably a pretty good shield for me and most of us provided I/we're not in a member class. Formal incorporation would be a complete shield.</div><div><br></div><div>We do have a rather full tapestry of legal personalities to chose from in the State of California to go along with our very diverse SOAC's. It just may be a case where different personalities are better fits for different groups. </div><div><br></div><div>Ed </div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br>Sent from my iPhone</div><div><br>On May 20, 2015, at 6:27 AM, Alan Greenberg <<a href="mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca">alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca</a>> wrote:<br><br></div><blockquote type="cite"><div>
Incorporating the GNSO (or perhaps the GNSO Council?) may well make it
legally liable for the decisions it takes. Are you really sure you want
that?<br><br>
Alan<br><br>
At 20/05/2015 01:09 AM, Edward Morris wrote:<br>
<blockquote type="cite" class="cite" cite="">Hi Avri,<br><br>
Rather than being confused I think you understand the concepts perfectly
and are pointing out some of the conceptual difficulties with the shell
UA's.<br><br>
My understanding, and I stand to be corrected, is that each SOAC will be
able to decide the form of legal personality it assumes. I hope that is
correct. While shell vehicles may be appropriate for some groups I'd be
interested at the GNSO level, for example, of exploring direct
incorporation of the GNSO itself. I'm not committing myself to the idea
but I do think it might be worth exploring. <br><br>
My strong preference is that the only centralized requirement coming out
of our group is that each SOAC must assume a legal personality. I hope
there is a possibility of leaving the exact form chosen up to the
individual SOAC. I think that would be very much in keeping with the
bottom up governance model most of us subscribe to. <br><br>
Ed<br><br>
<br><br>
On Wed, May 20, 2015 at 5:41 AM, Avri Doria
<<a href="mailto:avri@acm.org">avri@acm.org</a>> wrote:<br>
<dl>
<dd>Hi,<br><br>
</dd><dd>I think I understand the argument about members becoming that to
which<br>
</dd><dd>ICANN, and its Board, are responsible and accountable. From that<br>
</dd><dd>perspective it sounds really good.<br><br>
</dd><dd>What I have having trouble understanding is an accountability
structure<br>
</dd><dd>were there is a discontinuity between the SOAC and the UA. If
each of<br>
</dd><dd>the Board designating SOAC were the UA, it think I would
understand.<br>
</dd><dd>But I just do not see how the UA are accountable to the people
and<br>
</dd><dd>organizations that participate in each of the SOAC. Yes, the
SOAC<br>
</dd><dd>designates it UA representative, but how is (s)electing one of these
any<br>
</dd><dd>more accountable than (s)electing the Board as we do now. Don't
we just<br>
</dd><dd>move the perceived/possible unaccountability down a layer in the
hierarchy?<br><br>
</dd><dd>I think I am as comfortable with complexity as the next person.
And I<br>
</dd><dd>understand how in computer science any problem can solved by
adding<br>
</dd><dd>another layer of indirection, but in this case the extra layer we
are<br>
</dd><dd>creating does not seem to really be accountable to anyone but
itself,<br>
</dd><dd>except by (s)election procedures.<br><br>
</dd><dd>I am sure I am missing some critical bit of understanding and
hope<br>
</dd><dd>someone can explain the chain of accountability in the
membership<br>
</dd><dd>model. I feel that we are still hand-waving a bit in the
explanations.<br>
</dd><dd>In a sense it seems as if we are creating a 'council' that is
omnipotent<br>
</dd><dd>in the powers it is given, except that they can somehow be
replaced.<br><br>
</dd><dd>Thanks and apologies for my persistent confusion.<br><br>
</dd><dd>avri<br><br>
<br><br>
</dd><dd>On 20-May-15 01:14, Jordan Carter wrote:<br>
</dd><dd>> Hi all<br>
</dd><dd>><br>
</dd><dd>> This thread is useful to tease out some of the questions and
concerns<br>
</dd><dd>> and confusions with the UA model, and as rapporteur for the
WP<br>
</dd><dd>> responsible for refining this part of the proposal I am reading
it avidly.<br>
</dd><dd>><br>
</dd><dd>> I just want to take the opportunity to remind us all why
membership<br>
</dd><dd>> (or something analogous) is an important aspect of the reforms
we are<br>
</dd><dd>> proposing - no matter the precise details.<br>
</dd><dd>><br>
</dd><dd>> At the moment without members, ICANN is fundamentally controlled
by<br>
</dd><dd>> the Board. The only external constraint is the IANA functions
contract<br>
</dd><dd>> with NTIA. The long list of community concerns and examples
detailed<br>
</dd><dd>> by our earlier work in this CCWG shows that even with that
constraint,<br>
</dd><dd>> accountability isn't up to scratch.<br>
</dd><dd>><br>
</dd><dd>> We are working on a settlement without that NTIA contract.<br>
</dd><dd>> Accountability has to get better even *with* the contract.<br>
</dd><dd>> Fundamentally better, without it.<br>
</dd><dd>><br>
</dd><dd>> Either we have a membership structure or some other durable
approach<br>
</dd><dd>> that firmly embeds the stewardship of ICANN and the DNS in the
ICANN<br>
</dd><dd>> community, or... we remain with Board control.<br>
</dd><dd>><br>
</dd><dd>> Given ICANN's history, anyone who is advocating a continuation
of<br>
</dd><dd>> Board control is arguing for a model that can't be suitably<br>
</dd><dd>> accountable, and that seems highly likely to fail over time,
with real<br>
</dd><dd>> risks to the security and stability of the DNS.<br>
</dd><dd>><br>
</dd><dd>> A real, fundamental source of power over the company absent
the<br>
</dd><dd>> contract *has* to be established. The membership model is the
most<br>
</dd><dd>> suitable one to achieve that that we have considered so
far.<br>
</dd><dd>><br>
</dd><dd>> So: we need to be creative and thoughtful in how we make that
model<br>
</dd><dd>> work in a fashion that disrupts ICANN's general operation as
little as<br>
</dd><dd>> possible. But the key there is "as possible." Real
change is needed<br>
</dd><dd>> and much refinement and comment is needed.<br>
</dd><dd>><br>
</dd><dd>> If there are proposals to achieve the same shift in control from
ICANN<br>
</dd><dd>> the corporation to ICANN the community, I hope they come through
in<br>
</dd><dd>> the comment period. So far, none have - but there are still two
weeks<br>
</dd><dd>> of comments to go.<br>
</dd><dd>><br>
</dd><dd>> cheers<br>
</dd><dd>> Jordan<br>
</dd><dd>><br>
</dd><dd>><br>
</dd><dd>> On 20 May 2015 at 10:45, Malcolm Hutty
<<a href="mailto:malcolm@linx.net">malcolm@linx.net</a><br>
</dd><dd>>
<<a href="mailto:malcolm@linx.net" eudora="autourl">
mailto:malcolm@linx.net</a>>> wrote:<br>
</dd><dd>><br>
</dd><dd>> This whole thread seems to have massively
overcomplicated the<br>
</dd><dd>> question.<br>
</dd><dd>><br>
</dd><dd>><br>
</dd><dd>> Unless I have missed something, the only reason we
need "members"<br>
</dd><dd>> is to<br>
</dd><dd>> stand as plaintiff-of-record in a lawsuit against
the ICANN Board<br>
</dd><dd>> complaining that the Board has failed to adhere to
the corporations<br>
</dd><dd>> bylaws. Such a lawsuit would in reality be
conducted by an SO or<br>
</dd><dd>> AC, but<br>
</dd><dd>> a person with legal personality needs to act as
plaintiff-of-record.<br>
</dd><dd>><br>
</dd><dd>> Why not simply proceed, as Samantha suggested,
with the SOACs'<br>
</dd><dd>> Chairs as<br>
</dd><dd>> the members of the corporation? Could the Articles
(or Bylaws, as<br>
</dd><dd>> appropriate) not simply identify the SOACs' Chairs
as the members, ex<br>
</dd><dd>> officio and pro tempore?<br>
</dd><dd>><br>
</dd><dd>> An SOAC Chair that refused to act as
plaintiff-of-record when required<br>
</dd><dd>> to do so by his SOAC could simply be replaced.
Likewise a Chair that<br>
</dd><dd>> went rogue and initiated a lawsuit without their
consent.<br>
</dd><dd>><br>
</dd><dd>> You can't make the SOAC a member without turning
them into UAs,<br>
</dd><dd>> with all<br>
</dd><dd>> the attendent complexity. But I don't see that
there should be any<br>
</dd><dd>> such<br>
</dd><dd>> problem with designating the chair of a SOAC, who
will be a natural<br>
</dd><dd>> person, as a member of the corporation; the fact
that the SOAC is<br>
</dd><dd>> not a<br>
</dd><dd>> UA is then irrelevant.<br>
</dd><dd>><br>
</dd><dd>> In the event that there were any dispute as to
whether a particular<br>
</dd><dd>> person is in truth an SOAC Chair, this would
surely be a simple<br>
</dd><dd>> preliminary matter of fact for the court. It is
surely beyond dispute<br>
</dd><dd>> that if the Articles designated "Alan
Greenberg" as the member, it<br>
</dd><dd>> would<br>
</dd><dd>> be a matter of fact as to whether or not the
person before the<br>
</dd><dd>> court was<br>
</dd><dd>> indeed Alan Greenberg; surely it is the same as to
whether the person<br>
</dd><dd>> before the court is "the current Chair of
ALAC", if that should be<br>
</dd><dd>> what<br>
</dd><dd>> is specified in the Articles?<br>
</dd><dd>><br>
</dd><dd>> Malcolm.<br>
</dd><dd>><br>
</dd><dd>> --<br>
</dd><dd>> Malcolm
Hutty | tel: <a href="tel:%2B44%2020%207645%203523">+44 20 7645
3523</a><br>
</dd><dd>> <tel:%2B44%2020%207645%203523><br>
</dd><dd>> Head of Public Affairs | Read the LINX
Public Affairs blog<br>
</dd><dd>> London Internet Exchange |
<a href="http://publicaffairs.linx.net/">
http://publicaffairs.linx.net/</a><br>
</dd><dd>><br>
</dd><dd>>
London Internet Exchange Ltd<br>
</dd><dd>> 21-27 St
Thomas Street, London SE1 9RY<br>
</dd><dd>><br>
</dd><dd>> Company
Registered in England No. 3137929<br>
</dd><dd>> Trinity Court, Trinity
Street, Peterborough PE1 1DA<br>
</dd><dd>><br>
</dd><dd>><br>
</dd><dd>>
_______________________________________________<br>
</dd><dd>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list<br>
</dd><dd>>
<a href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org">
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a><br>
</dd><dd>>
<<a href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org" eudora="autourl">
mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a>><br>
</dd><dd>>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community">
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a>
<br>
</dd><dd>><br>
</dd><dd>><br>
</dd><dd>><br>
</dd><dd>><br>
</dd><dd>> --<br>
</dd><dd>> Jordan Carter<br>
</dd><dd>><br>
</dd><dd>> Chief Executive<br>
</dd><dd>> *InternetNZ*<br>
</dd><dd>><br>
</dd><dd>> 04 495 2118 (office) | <a href="tel:%2B64%2021%20442%20649">+64
21 442 649</a> (mob)<br>
</dd><dd>>
<a href="mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz">jordan@internetnz.net.nz</a>
<<a href="mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz" eudora="autourl">
mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz</a>><br>
</dd><dd>> Skype: jordancarter<br>
</dd><dd>><br>
</dd><dd>> /A better world through a better Internet /<br>
</dd><dd>><br>
</dd><dd>><br>
</dd><dd>><br>
</dd><dd>> _______________________________________________<br>
</dd><dd>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list<br>
</dd><dd>>
<a href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org">
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a><br>
</dd><dd>>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community" eudora="autourl">
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a>
<br><br>
<br>
</dd><dd>---<br>
</dd><dd>This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus
software.<br>
</dd><dd><a href="http://www.avast.com">http://www.avast.com</a><br><br>
</dd><dd>_______________________________________________<br>
</dd><dd>Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list<br>
</dd><dd><a href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org">
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a><br>
</dd><dd>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community" eudora="autourl">
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a>
<br><br>
</dd></dl><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" eudora="autourl">
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a>
</blockquote>
</div></blockquote></body></html>