<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">Alan,</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 conceptually correct, to the best of my understanding. LLC's are kind of like a parallel world, where concepts more or less similar to those of corporations are given different names, in part because an LLC has some "DNA" from partnerships and some from corporations. </div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">-- An LLC issues "units" instead of "shares"<br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">-- The owners of units are called "members" rather than shareholders</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">-- An LLC that is wholly-owned by another entity is called a single-member LLC</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">-- LLC's can be "member-managed" and thus will not have a separate manager (or a board of managers). In many states, member-managed is the default (which does not mean it is right for every circumstance). If there is more than one member, one member can be designated the "managing member."</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">In the present instance, PTI could be a single-member LLC, where ICANN is the sole member, and PTI can be member managed (i.e, ICANN would be the managing (and only) member). This solves the ownership, control and accountability issue fairly simply. There are other pros and cons to non-profit affiliate vs. LLC subsidiary, which I believe counsel have discussed, but this aspect can be seen as more straightforward. </div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">Note that its my understanding that "managers" are not really the same as "directors," so a board of managers is not the same as a board of directors. Very roughly, LLC managers are expected to manage, and as such have broader powers than directors in many ways (e.g., the power to bind the LLC).</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><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, May 25, 2015 at 12:46 AM, 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">
<div>
However, my recollection is that if we select the LLC option, a board is
NOT a requirement (but could be an option). Alan<div><div class="h5"><br><br>
At 25/05/2015 12:36 AM, Greg Shatan wrote:<br>
<blockquote type="cite">Seun,<br><br>
It's a basic and unwaivable element of a corporation (non-profit or for
profit) to have a board of directors. The relevant section of the
California Corporate Code reads (emphasis added):<br><br>
<br>
<pre>5210. Each corporation shall have a board of directors.
Subject to
the provisions of this part and any limitations in the articles or
bylaws relating to action required to be approved by the members
(Section 5034), or by a majority of all members (Section 5033), the
activities and affairs of a corporation shall be conducted and all
corporate powers shall be exercised by or under the direction of the
board. The board may delegate the management of the activities of the
corporation to any person or persons, management company, or
committee however composed, provided that the activities and affairs
of the corporation shall be managed and all corporate powers shall be
exercised under the ultimate direction of the board.</pre><br><br>
On Sun, May 24, 2015 at 1:44 PM, Seun Ojedeji
<<a href="mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com" target="_blank">seun.ojedeji@gmail.com</a>
> wrote:<br>
<dl><br>
<dd>sent from Google nexus 4<br>
</dd><dd>kindly excuse brevity and typos.<br>
</dd><dd>On 24 May 2015 15:53, "Seun Ojedeji"
<<a href="mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com" target="_blank">seun.ojedeji@gmail.com</a>
> wrote:<br>
</dd><dd>><br>
</dd><dd>> Hi Avri,<br>
</dd><dd>><br>
</dd><dd>> Thanks for the attempt, I don't think the noncom option would
work especially as they would be selecting within stakeholders that are
more than 3. I would have love to have an MS PTI board, but the
possibility of it not becoming a large one may not be realistic.<br>
</dd><dd>> I see 3 options going forward:<br>
</dd><dd>><br>
</dd><dd>> - PTI gets filled with a committee of ICANN board and IANA most
senior staff<br>
</dd><dd>><br>
</dd><dd>> - PTI gets filled with 2 ICANN global leaders, 1 ICANN board
liaison and IANA most senior staff<br>
</dd><dd>><br>
</dd><dd>> - We ask legal if it's compulsory to have a for PTI and if it
isn't then the most senior IANA staff should just manage PTI and report
to ICANN board/community<br>
</dd><dd>><br>
</dd><dd>SO:<br>
</dd><dd>Edit: <br><br>
</dd><dd>- We ask legal if it's compulsory to have a *board* for PTI and if it
isn't then the most senior IANA staff should just manage PTI and report
to ICANN board/community<br><br>
</dd><dd>Cheers!<br><br>
</dd><dd>> Regards<br>
</dd><dd>> sent from Google nexus 4<br>
</dd><dd>> kindly excuse brevity and typos.<br>
</dd><dd>><br>
</dd><dd>> On 24 May 2015 13:50, "Avri Doria"
<<a href="mailto:avri@acm.org" target="_blank">avri@acm.org</a>> wrote:<br>
</dd><dd>>><br>
</dd><dd>>> Hi,<br>
</dd><dd>>><br>
</dd><dd>>> I would like to put a proposal on the table on the
composition of the<br>
</dd><dd>>> PTI Board.<br>
</dd><dd>>><br>
</dd><dd>>> Specifically<br>
</dd><dd>>><br>
</dd><dd>>> On 22-May-15 18:32, Avri Doria wrote:<br>
</dd><dd>>> > * On the PTI Board, I believe it should be minimal, so
instead of having<br>
</dd><dd>>> > a balanced multstakeholder set of individuals, it
should have a majority<br>
</dd><dd>>> > of representatives (s)elected by a multistakeholder
modality. e.g 1<br>
</dd><dd>>> > ICANN Staff, 1 PTI Staff, 3 selected by ICANN
Nomcom.<br>
</dd><dd>>><br>
</dd><dd>>> Personally, I propose:<br>
</dd><dd>>><br>
</dd><dd>>> 1 ICANN Staff as selected by ICANN President and endorsed by
ICANN Board<br>
</dd><dd>>> 1 PTI Staff, typically the Sr. Officer of the PTI, i.e its
President or<br>
</dd><dd>>> Executive Director or their designee<br>
</dd><dd>>> 3 Nomcom Selections<br>
</dd><dd>>> various liaisons as agreed after cross operational community
discussions<br>
</dd><dd>>><br>
</dd><dd>>> This PTI Board would have fewer people in it than the PTI
staff has, but<br>
</dd><dd>>> would be large enough for some degree of diversity.<br>
</dd><dd>>><br>
</dd><dd>>> While in a formal sense, this would seem to be an outside
Board, given<br>
</dd><dd>>> that the majority is picked by the ICANN community instead
of the ICANN<br>
</dd><dd>>> staff, it is an insider board when considered from the
perspective of<br>
</dd><dd>>> ICANN as a multistakeholder run organization.<br>
</dd><dd>>><br>
</dd><dd>>> It avoids the problem of deciding that one stakeholder type
is more<br>
</dd><dd>>> appropriate that another, but allows the community on an
annual basis to<br>
</dd><dd>>> decide which skills and knowledge are most important using a
well<br>
</dd><dd>>> established ICANN method. The skills and knowledge may
vary over time,<br>
</dd><dd>>> including considerations such as operational
experience, financial<br>
</dd><dd>>> skill, international legal knowledge, security
capability, root zone<br>
</dd><dd>>> operator perspective, community policy perspective, DNS
protocol or<br>
</dd><dd>>> system design expertise. Those selected by the ICANN
Nomcom could be<br>
</dd><dd>>> community insiders or outside experts, as decided by each
Nomcom<br>
</dd><dd>>> according to the perceived needs at that time. The set of
considerations<br>
</dd><dd>>> and needs would be decided on by the ICANN Nomcom in
consultation with<br>
</dd><dd>>> ICANN Board & Staff, the multistakeholder community and
PTI staff,<br>
</dd><dd>>> according to Nomcom's normal current and future
practices.<br>
</dd><dd>>><br>
</dd><dd>>> In terms of the current discussions, it allows us to defer
certain<br>
</dd><dd>>> decisions, such as which skill and knowledge categories are
most<br>
</dd><dd>>> appropriate until they can address future
understandings. It avoid<br>
</dd><dd>>> having the CWG micromanage the future of the PTI Board, yet
leaves it<br>
</dd><dd>>> under the community's control.<br>
</dd><dd>>><br>
</dd><dd>>><br>
</dd><dd>>> thanks<br>
</dd><dd>>> avri<br>
</dd><dd>>><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" target="_blank">http://www.avast.com</a><br>
</dd><dd>>><br>
</dd><dd>>> _______________________________________________<br>
</dd><dd>>> CWG-Stewardship mailing list<br>
</dd><dd>>>
<a href="mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org" target="_blank">CWG-Stewardship@icann.org</a>
<br>
</dd><dd>>>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship" target="_blank">
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship</a><br><br>
<br>
</dd><dd>_______________________________________________<br>
</dd><dd>CWG-Stewardship mailing list<br>
</dd><dd><a href="mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org" target="_blank">
CWG-Stewardship@icann.org</a><br>
</dd><dd>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship" target="_blank">
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship</a><br><br>
</dd></dl><br>
_______________________________________________<br>
CWG-Stewardship mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org" target="_blank">CWG-Stewardship@icann.org</a><br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship" target="_blank">
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship</a></blockquote>
</div></div></div>
</blockquote></div><br></div>