[Acct-Legal] Fwd: [CCWG-ACCT] member organization and single membership structure

Wed Apr 22 13:27:02 UTC 2015

We should discuss point 2 on today's call.

Greg

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: *Roelof Meijer* <Roelof.Meijer at sidn.nl>
Date: Wednesday, April 22, 2015
Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] member organization and single membership structure
To: Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community at icann.org
>

  From: Roelof Meijer <roelof.meijer at sidn.nl
<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','roelof.meijer at sidn.nl');>>
  Date: woensdag 22 april 2015 14:16
To: Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill at afnic.fr
<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','mathieu.weill at afnic.fr');>>, "
accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org
<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org');>"
<accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org
<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org');>>,
Thomas Rickert <rickert at anwaelte.de
<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','rickert at anwaelte.de');>>, León Felipe Sánchez
Ambía <leonfelipe at sanchez.mx
<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','leonfelipe at sanchez.mx');>>
Subject: member organization and single membership structure

   Dear co-chairs, all,

 Two points:

 1)
I stopped my participation in  yesterday night’s (my time) CCWG call
somewhere halfway agenda item “5. Legal advice”. Mainly because I think
we’re wasting so much precious time with the discussion on and comparison
of two models, of which one should have been written off sometime back.
My earlier emails copied below should provide more information on my
rationale, but should also serve as formal input into the process.

 2)
What I find quite frustrating is that I have raised the point of the
possibility (or not) of a single membership structure – an option mentioned
by Sidley and Adler & Colving in their legal advice – several times by now
without getting any substantial reaction. I am not aware that any serious
effort to investigate this has led to a formal write-off.
So, co-chairs: what is happening here or what have I missed?

 Best,

 Roelof

 On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 11:10 AM, Roelof Meijer <Roelof.Meijer at sidn.nl
<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','Roelof.Meijer at sidn.nl');>> wrote:

>  Dear Jordan, all,
>
>  I couldn’t attend the call, so I probably missed something.
> But how did we end up with the two law firms we hire stating: „On
> balance, “member” organization provides the clearest path for the ICANN
> community to exercise the mechanisms and powers under consideration. „ and
>  our rapporteur concluding: "Following the CCWG meeting on 10 April, the
> rapporteur had assumed there would be clarity regarding the proposed
> mechanism. This has not occurred*„*
>
>
>  Best,
>
>  Roelof
>
>   On Sun, Apr 19, 2015 at 12:25 PM, Roelof Meijer <Roelof.Meijer at sidn.nl
<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','Roelof.Meijer at sidn.nl');>> wrote:

>  Greg, Jordan,
>
>  What I fail to understand is that -because we do not have the expertise
> „in house”- we hire two firms that are experts in this field, they give us
> their shared opinion and we do not follow that.
> It seems to me that this is one of those things that makes this whole
> process sometimes so slow and incredibly time consuming.
>
>  Do not misunderstand me, I respect the legal experts we have in the
> CCWG. But we pay (ICANN pays, so the internet community pays) dearly for
> this advice, they are both renown firms that we took quite some time to
> select. Why not accept the outcome and move forward, spending our precious
> time on all the work that still has to be done?
>
>  Best,
>
>  Roelof
>
>   On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 11:04 AM, Roelof Meijer <Roelof.Meijer at sidn.nl
<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','Roelof.Meijer at sidn.nl');>> wrote:

>  Greg,
>
>  Thanks for that. Still, if I look at the difference in "amount of boxes
> ticked" in the part „summary of desired powers” of the slide deck of 14
> April prepared by counsel, I see no point in continuing to evaluate
> counsel’s advice re designators.
>
>  Maybe you can help me out on another point though. In their
> memorandum/legal assessment of April 10, Sidley and Adler & Colvin
> mentioned the possibility of a „sole membership” structure. Meaning –as far
> as I understood it- that not every AC and every SO would become a member
> (and thus would have to become a legal entity), but the group of
> representatives of the SO’s and AC’s would form a single legal entity and
> would become ICANN’s sole member.
> I have sent several emails to this list suggesting we follow this up as
> one of the serious possibilities, without –as far as I am aware- any effect.
> Do you have any idea what happened to this particular part of counsel’s
> advice?
>
>  Best,
>
>  Roelof
>
  Groet,

 Roelof
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ccwg-accountability5/attachments/20150422/15303cb3/attachment.html>