[CCWG-ACCT] Suggested text for designaor model

[Izumi Okutani]

I see Robin has suggested text for this part. 
I support this text, so rather than for the group to review two different texts, it would be good if anyone who has comments could comment on this text. Thanks.

---
p. 52 edit (f) as follows:
"Designators are a construct in California law that can achieve reliable enforcement of 4 of the 6 community powers sought, specifically with respect to community approval or blocking of changes of bylaws and the selection and removal of board members.  There is concern however, regarding the ease and reliability with which the other 2 community powers sought (approval of budget and strategic plan) can be enforced once created under the designator model, according to legal counsel.  Legal counsel further advises that the SOs and ACs organize themselves into unincorporated associations in both corporate governance models, whether a designator or membership structure."
---

Izumi

On 2015/04/29 5:13, Izumi Okutani wrote:
> Dear all,
> 
> 
> As mentioned at the # 30 CCWG call, I'd like to suggest text changes for 6.6.1.1 f).
> 
> 
> 6.6.1.1 The Community Mechanism: Reference
> Mechanism
> 
> CURRENT TEXT
> Designators are a construct in California law that can achieve some of the powers proposed below ‐
> mainly those regarding the selection and removal of Board members and the approval or blocking of
> changes to bylaws. But they cannot reliably deliver other aspects of the set of powers the CCWG
> believes the community needs, if it is to fully hold ICANN to account. Crucially, in the view of our
> counsel, this would also oblige the SOs and ACs to organise themselves into unincorporated
> associations ‐ and so some perceived simplicity compared with the membership model isn’t actually
> possible.
> 
> SUGGESTED TEXT
> 
> f) Designators are a construct in California law that can achieve some of the powers proposed below - As ICANN's SOs/ACs struture is consistent with this model, "the selection and removal of Board members" and "the 
> approval or blocking of changes to bylaws" can be achieved by changing the ByLaws to define the role of SOs/ACs as designators, without the need to organise unincorporated association. But they cannot reliably deliver other aspects of the set of powers the CCWG believes the community needs, such as statutory power for full board dismissal and ability to have legal standing in court for enforcement of rights, if it is to fully hold ICANN to account. 
> Crucially, in the view of our counsel, to have dismissal of the entire board and for legal enforcement of rights in court, would require some additional contractual relationships between SOs/ACs and ICANN, which would also oblige SOs and ACs to establish themselves into unincorporated associations, so some of the perceived simplicity compared with the membership model isn't actually achievable.
> 
> 
> Izumi
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>