IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Ianaplan] cwg legal review

Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com> Mon, 18 May 2015 18:22 UTC

Return-Path: <ted.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 32A441B29D1 for <ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 18 May 2015 11:22:05 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.1
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.1 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_20=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id WrpEP-ocCFts for <ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 18 May 2015 11:22:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wi0-x234.google.com (mail-wi0-x234.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c05::234]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 571E71B29CE for <ianaplan@ietf.org>; Mon, 18 May 2015 11:22:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by wibt6 with SMTP id t6so78953917wib.0 for <ianaplan@ietf.org>; Mon, 18 May 2015 11:22:02 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=YRh7Wnaqf2C5/4NVf5k2Ha2WW0hgp9g5g9pqtSn5ScM=; b=OZYcUepAdhNRXWAJJCJtFzgLXh03XchNYQWBK3VsbjKy0qPt+TaAzGJKl+XYTIN08I abNYu24YbcgVsAEC/iNcZQjzKicDcfQMklhvL9D1w2tV8Fuu3DKX93jWKP/T1m6znEB8 31gX3039m2+Qgo82nT2A1UO05vnS/65lp/9xF8yQluOWdZCoG80T0dBCVJn4FJaEOopR I3NjktLiwNOC0EIUgbqGbs1ONH3FRKfPCzwZls6vnS69N8fDaBdaDakZSCOjPhGmq7q4 ynGN4Cm+A56XTvly7izf7nTORSOKmG46WuuLyt0bSF872CjfNLKJ+JZKjjJh9MdXRmTq SoOw==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.194.85.116 with SMTP id g20mr47116294wjz.154.1431973321992; Mon, 18 May 2015 11:22:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.194.185.171 with HTTP; Mon, 18 May 2015 11:22:01 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <A1682424-DD87-49D5-9DFF-191E5A7E67BD@viagenie.ca>
References: <A1682424-DD87-49D5-9DFF-191E5A7E67BD@viagenie.ca>
Date: Mon, 18 May 2015 11:22:01 -0700
Message-ID: <CA+9kkMD6gPB_K+6ibkfUVsOJV4wsCswyMLxp3thj2kJJ9YOi-A@mail.gmail.com>
From: Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com>
To: Marc Blanchet <marc.blanchet@viagenie.ca>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="047d7bfcfd502f6f9e05165f45ef"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ianaplan/54S5L9RrF0yTEs2JfkjQn_OKpLk>
Cc: "ianaplan@ietf.org" <ianaplan@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Ianaplan] cwg legal review
X-BeenThere: ianaplan@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IANA Plan <ianaplan.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ianaplan>, <mailto:ianaplan-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ianaplan/>
List-Post: <mailto:ianaplan@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ianaplan-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ianaplan>, <mailto:ianaplan-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 18 May 2015 18:22:05 -0000

Hi Marc,

Thanks for the pointers to these.  If I am reading these correctly, Sidley
Austin appears to strongly favor a Delaware LLC structure as more flexible
and less likely to cause tax headaches by requiring a separate
determination of tax-exempt status; further, they favor a single-member LLC
because that causes it to be a "disregarded entity" for tax purposes.
Separately, they favor an insider board because they believe an outsider
board would cause PTI to be sufficiently distinct that ICANN would  not be
responsible for PTI's actions or, thus, accountable for them.  As a result,
separate accountability methods are needed for PTIs board.

Does this match your/others' reading?

Ted

On Mon, May 18, 2015 at 8:44 AM, Marc Blanchet <marc.blanchet@viagenie.ca>
wrote:

> Hello,
>  FYI, there has been some legal review/commentary of the CWG proposal. You
> can find in the two memos dated May 13th in the following page:
> https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocwgdtstwrdshp/Client+Committee
>
> Regards, Marc.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ianaplan mailing list
> Ianaplan@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ianaplan
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email