[WP1] First comments

[Alan Greenberg]

The reason I pushed for the use of the new term (Empowered Community) 
is that the "Designator" technically has legal meaning only in 
relation to the AC/SO/NomCom that appoint directors. The Empowered 
Community refers to a wider set of AC/SOs and excludes that NomCom.

I was suggesting that the UA "entity" we create be the Empowered 
Community. This entity is empowered to exercise that non-director 
powers, and is also takes on the role of the Sole Designator for the 
purposes of director appointments and removals.

Alan



At 22/11/2015 02:26 PM, Greg Shatan wrote:
>Two of Alan's comments imply that there is a distinction between the 
>"Sole Designator" and the "Empowered Community":
>
>Page 14, step 5, bullet 1. For removal of directors, it is the sole 
>designator the uses its powers. For the other powers, shouldn't it 
>be the Empowered Community?
>Page 16 and elsewhere, Articles of Incorporation changes also need 
>approval of the Empowered Community (not just the Designators as 
>could be implied from Steve's suggestion).
>
>
>Maybe I'm losing track here, but I thought the "Empowered Community" 
>was the same thing as the "Sole Designator" -- just a more 
>user-friendly name (or "brand").  I admit I haven't read the Third 
>Draft yet, so maybe I'm missing something....  Am I missing something?
>
>Greg
>
>On Sun, Nov 22, 2015 at 12:53 PM, Alan Greenberg 
><<mailto:alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca> wrote:
>I have a conflict with today's meeting, but here are a few comments. 
>I will have more for the meeting on Monday.
>
>Page 10, delineation of the Empowered Community. I think we need to 
>mention here why the other two ACs are not listed (their own choice 
>combined with the fact that they are technically appointed by the 
>Board). Also, do we not need to say that the SSAC and RSSAC are 
>members of the Empowered Community in their advisory role?
>
>Page 10, item 1 at the bottom. The wording in the footnote below is 
>more appropriate. "The entity will act as the sole designator, which 
>has ....".  Saying it takes the form of the sole designator 
>obfuscated the fact that it will also act on behalf of all 5 (or 
>whatever) AC/SOs that weld power.
>
>Page 14, if it is envisioned that the Community Forum would EVER be 
>F2F, 15 days is not sufficient. If we keep 15 days, we need to make 
>sure we are nowhere referring to it as F2F.
>
>Page 14, step 5, bullet 1. For removal of directors, it is the sole 
>designator the uses its powers. For the other powers, shouldn't it 
>be the Empowered Community?
>
>Page 16 and elsewhere, Articles of Incorporation changes also need 
>approval of the Empowered Community (not just the Designators as 
>could be implied from Steve's suggestion).
>
>Page 25, procedures to ENSURE that the Interim Board will not be in 
>ploace for more than 120 days. ENSURE is too strong a word. "with a 
>target of ensuring" would be fine.
>
>Alan
>
>_______________________________________________
>WP1 mailing list
><mailto:WP1 at icann.org>WP1 at icann.org
>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp1
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/wp1/attachments/20151122/04bae540/attachment.html>