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

[Greg Shatan]

Respectfully, I disagree with Eduardo and Chuck on the following issue:

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.


As a general point, we have asked counsel to provide us not only with their
technical expertise, but also with the benefit of their practical
experience.  Here they are telling us two things based on their experience:

-- corporate formalities "can be fairly minimal."
-- additional costs introduced by operating PTI with a separate legal
status "should not be significant."

Our counsels' practical experience certainly includes forming corporate
entities and attending to corporate formalities (sometimes called
"corporate housekeeping") -- I'd daresay among our counsel they have done
and continue to do this for hundreds (if not thousands) of corporations.
>From my own experience and knowledge, corporate formation and corporate
housekeeping are essentially ministerial tasks, and are neither
particularly complex or time-consuming (though it requires some familiarity
and experience to do these tasks).  It's really a fairly objective and
entirely reasonable statement for someone with the requisite knowledge to
say that these "can be fairly minimal."  Indeed, I can't think of a
scenario where attending to corporate formalities would not be fairly
minimal.

Similarly, I'm fairly sure counsel have dealt many times with the costs
associated with having business units in wholly-owned or controlled
subsidiaries rather than divisions, and they are aware of what those costs
are.  Again this seems like a reasonable statement and one that I'm sure is
made objectively.  From my experience, the costs that are a direct result
of running a business as a subsidiary, as opposed to as a business unit
within the same entity, are not significant.

In sum, I believe these are both reasonable and very unsurprising
statements.  I know that it is not the intent, but I think that giving the
impression that the opposite (corporate formalities are not fairly minimal;
costs resulting from operating a business as a subsidiary (vs. as a
business unit) are significant) could be true creates FUD where there
should be none.  Therefore, I think it would be appropriate to accept this
advice.

If we don't want to accept counsel's advice, I don't think the appropriate
response is to delete it.  Rather, I think the appropriate action would be
to ask counsel to explain the basis of the statements.  Alternatively, we
could insert "counsel advises" after "although" in each statement.  Let me
say that I don't believe we need to do either of these things.  But, if the
group is not willing to accept these and move on, these are the courses of
action that should be considered.

Greg


On Sun, Apr 19, 2015 at 11:51 AM, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes at verisign.com> wrote:

>  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> 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
> 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
> 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.
>
> _______________________________________________
> CWG-Stewardship mailing list
> CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20150420/e2c270fa/attachment-0001.html>