[CWG-Stewardship] [client com] Draft: Summary of Legal Structure for CWG Proposal

[Gomes, Chuck]

I think that Eduardo is probably right that we really don’t know whether the increased cost for the legal separation will be significant or not without a detailed analysis by the Finance Team.  Now that we are specifically leaning toward the legal separation approach, I suggest that we request an analysis by the Finance Team right away.  It will take them awhile to do it and they will probably have some questions for us but the sooner we get that started the better.  Xavier understands that a lot of the shared IANA costs can still be shared so that will minimize the increase but there will still be increases.  As far as the language in © below, I suggest we say something along these lines instead saying ‘although those should not be significant’:  “The significance of the increased costs cannot be determined until a detailed analysis is done by the ICANN Finance Team, but the CWG has requested that analysis and expects to have at least preliminary results before the public comment period ends.”

Chuck

From: cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Eduardo Diaz
Sent: Saturday, April 18, 2015 4:43 PM
To: cwg-stewardship at icann.org
Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] [client com] Draft: Summary of Legal Structure for CWG Proposal

My comments about the S-A document 20179247_3 on legal structure:

1] It is not clear who is going to decide about the concepts of designator vs. members (2nd para, page3). Is this an item for the CCWG to resolve?

2] Items (a) & (c) in section  "The weaknesses of the proposed structure are as follows." (page 3):

"(a) Requires forming a new entity and on an ongoing basis attending to a set of  associated corporate formalities, although those can be fairly minimal;"

" (c) May have some negative impact on operational efficiency due to the
functional separation, and the separate legal status will introduce some
additional costs, although those should not be significant."

I suggest to delete the two statements pointed here by an underline/italics. Both statements are seemly subjectives and tend to steer the reader
 to think that this will be easy to implement and that it will not be costly. There has not been any deep analysis done on these to support either statement.

-ed



On Sat, Apr 18, 2015 at 1:49 PM, Client Committee List for CWG <cwg-client at icann.org<mailto:cwg-client at icann.org>> wrote:
Dear All,

Attached is a summary of the current legal structure under consideration by the CWG.   This also includes the CCWG dependencies.

Please let us know if you have any comments or would like to discuss.

Best regards,
Sharon

SHARON FLANAGAN
Partner

Sidley Austin LLP
+1.415.772.1271<tel:%2B1.415.772.1271>
sflanagan at sidley.com<mailto:sflanagan at sidley.com>





****************************************************************************************************
This e-mail is sent by a law firm and may contain information that is privileged or confidential.
If you are not the intended recipient, please delete the e-mail and any attachments and notify us
immediately.

****************************************************************************************************

_______________________________________________
Cwg-client mailing list
Cwg-client at icann.org<mailto:Cwg-client at icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-client



--
NOTICE: This email may contain information which is confidential and/or subject to legal privilege, and is intended for the use of the named addressee only. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, disclose or copy any part of this email. If you have received this email by mistake, please notify the sender and delete this message immediately.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20150419/052d5e09/attachment-0001.html>