[CCWG-ACCT] Concept of some form of "independent" member

Nigel Roberts nigel at channelisles.net
Fri Jul 17 11:53:22 UTC 2015


I think we need to be very clear on terminology and use.

ICANN is an international, multistakeholder organisation, not an 
American one, despite having its seat in one of the 50 states of the USA.

Your use of "legal person" to include "natural person" is a term-of-art.

What we would say is that the two terms are mutually exclusive, but both 
legal and natural persons have legal personality (the test of which is, 
perhaps, "to be able to sue and be sued in their own name)

For a cautionary tale, if it still existed, I would take you to the 
transcript for the very first meeting of the DNSO (i.e. the GNSO+CCNSO) 
in 1999 in Santiago de Chile.

The meeting descended into farce as follows.

Member: 	"Lets table this resolution"

Chairman: 	"Is that agreed?"

All:		"Yes"

Chairman:	"Next business"

2nd Member:	"Wait a minute, we were going to table this resolution"

Chairman:	"We just did"

2nd Member:	"No we didn't, you just moved to next business without 
tabling the resolution. There was no vote".

<REPEAT AD NAUSEAM UNTIL>

Esther Dyson (sitting barefoot on the floor in the audience)
		"You do realise that that 'table' means to put ON the table to 
Europeans, and to take OFF the table to Americans . . . ."








On 17/07/15 12:43, Gregory, Holly wrote:
> U.S. Law perspective
>
>
>
> Sent with Good (www.good.com)
> *
> *
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From:* accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org on behalf of
> Nigel Roberts
> *Sent:* Friday, July 17, 2015 06:41:58 AM
> *To:* Dr Eberhard W Lisse
> *Cc:* accountability-cross-community at icann.org
> *Subject:* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Concept of some form of "independent" member
>
> In English Law, certainly not! They are something more akin to a
> partnership, in that they have no legal personality other than that of
> the natural persons who come together for a joint purpose, and have (in
> England) joint and several, unlimited legal liability.
>
> The clue is in the Latin root of the word corporation which, literally
> means "becoming a body". Thus anything unincorporated has not acquired
> legal personality.
>
> I have to say I've always been fascinated to read that there are actual
> towns and cities that do not exists as bodies corporate, but that's, I
> suppose, a rathole for a bar discussion.
>
>
> On 17/07/15 12:35, Dr Eberhard W Lisse wrote:
>> Are UAs legal persons?
>>
>> el
>>
>> On 2015-07-17 13:13 , Gregory, Holly wrote:
>>> Natural persons (humans) are legal persons
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Sent with Good (www.good.com <http://www.good.com>)
>>> *
>>>
>>> *
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> *From:* accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org on behalf of
>>> Nigel Roberts
>>> *Sent:* Friday, July 17, 2015 05:51:22 AM
>>> *To:* accountability-cross-community at icann.org
>>> *Subject:* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Concept of some form of "independent" member
>>>
>>> Greg
>>>
>>> I think this is incorrect. I find it hard to imagine a corporation (and,
>>> particularly a non-profit corporation) which is required by law to
>>> restrict membership to legal persons in this way, that is to *require*
>>> members to be legal persons.
>>>
>>> I cannot believe US law is so fundamentally different here -- members of
>>> a corporation may normally be either natural persons or legal persons
>>> unless there are explicit restrictions in the Articles, which is a
>>> matter of choice, not compulsion.
>>>
>>> (I can imagine a non-profit CHOOSING to restrict membership to one or
>>> the other but I can't imagine any statutory requirement of this nature.)
>>>
>>> A trade association MIGHT restrict membership to legal persons: e.g. the
>>> Association of Incorporated Widget Makers (fictitious) may only allow
>>> incorporated makes of widgets; however it would be less unexpected to
>>> see non-profits expecting members to be natural persons only (e.g. the
>>> American Radio Relay League seehttp://www.arrl.org/arrl-by-laws).
>>>
>>> Can you expand on this please?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 17/07/15 09:47, Greg Shatan wrote:
>>>
>>>> hands of the community, and to have these powers as a matter of right.
>>>> Members must be legal persons.
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>>> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>>>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ****************************************************************************************************
>>> 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.
>>>
>>> ****************************************************************************************************
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>>> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>>>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community



More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list