<html><head><meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body dir="auto"><div>Hi Sam,</div><div><br></div><div>The CCWG has retained two law firms, accountable to it and not ICANN corporate, that are working on clarifying the various options available to us as we turn ICANN into a truly accountable organization we can all be proud of. I assure you that those of us working on the CCWG are truly committed to providing all members of the community with as much information as possible going forward, so that the important deliberations during the public comment period(s) will be informed by a variety of perspectives rooted in applicable statutory law. </div><div><br></div><div>Those interested in our work to date are encouraged to access the archives of all the CCWG working groups, subgroups and sub-subgroups at <a href="https://community.icann.org/m/mobile.action#page/50823985">https://community.icann.org/m/mobile.action#page/50823985</a>. I should also note it's never too late to sign up to join the CCWG and actively help construct a new and, hopefully, more accountable and transparent ICANN. Joining instructions can be found here: <a href="https://community.icann.org/m/mobile.action#page/49348770">https://community.icann.org/m/mobile.action#page/49348770</a>. I'd love to see more folks participating as we go forward and would be happy to help anyone who would like to get involved.</div><div><br></div><div>Thanks,</div><div><br></div><div>Ed<br><br>Sent from my iPad</div><div><br>On Apr 9, 2015, at 3:23 PM, Sam Lanfranco <<a href="mailto:lanfran@YORKU.CA">lanfran@YORKU.CA</a>> wrote:<br><br></div><blockquote type="cite"><div>
<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">I would like to make one comment on the
following part of Robin's posting [ <b>emphasis added</b>] where
it says : <br>
<br>
P<i>robably the thorniest of the WS1 issues is the "community
empowerment" goal. The various proposals for this goal include
turning ICANN into a </i><i><b>membership organization</b></i><i>,
tweeking its existing status by empowering the SO/ACs through
bylaws revisions, a proposal for a "community veto" on key board
decisions, creation of a "community council" or a permanent CCWG
on accountability, etc. These are big complex issues and we
will need to make a recommendation that goes out for public
comment on 20 April. I believe Rafik is in the process of
organizing an NCSG webinar on this subject and we can also
discuss the issue on Tuesday's NCSG monthly call.</i><br>
<br>
For organizations such as ICANN there is a big difference between
being a "membership organization" and what ICANN is now, a
more-or-less member/constituency supported organization. A move
toward "turning ICANN into a membership organization" involves
more than just "tweeking its existing status". My strong advice is
that ICANN not only have legal advice on these issues (which I am
sure it has) but that documents be available to the stakeholder
communities early (before Buenos Aires) so that discussion is
informed by the legal requirements involved in a possible
membership organization option. <br>
<br>
Let me draw on one aspect of recent Canadian experience which is
relevant here because Canada, along with other countries, has
signed on to binding international agreements with regard to how
registered and incorporated non-profit membership organizations
are structured and how they are governed. The organization I
represent on NPOC, The Canadian Society for International Health,
and the ISOC Canada chapter, where I am on the Board, are now both
required, by law, to have only Canadian citizens as members of the
board, all elected by membership, and both now face much more
detailed and onerous internal governance and reporting
requirements. <br>
<br>
What would be useful, for ongoing discussion around accountability
and for face-to-face discussion in Buenos Aires, would be some
clear legal advice around the organizational governance
requirements, including the election of the board, of moving to a
formal membership organization, and the alternative of
strengthening the role of the mulstistakeholder community within
an ICANN that remains as a member/stakeholder supported (or
engaged) organization. The discussion of the strengths and
weaknesses of various options needs to take place within the
context of applicable law, and not just on the merits of the
options apart from context. <br>
<br>
Sam L. <br>
</div>
<br>
<br>
</div></blockquote></body></html>