Re: [Ianaplan] cwg legal review
Milton L Mueller <mueller@syr.edu> Mon, 18 May 2015 21:21 UTC
Return-Path: <mueller@syr.edu>
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 459CA1ACCFF for <ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 18 May 2015 14:21:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.209
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.209 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] 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 WSi2xpgAW4zH for <ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 18 May 2015 14:21:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp2.syr.edu (smtp2.syr.edu [128.230.18.92]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0B7CC1ACD15 for <ianaplan@ietf.org>; Mon, 18 May 2015 14:21:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from EX13-MBX-01.ad.syr.edu (ex13-mbx-01.ad.syr.edu [128.230.108.131]) by smtp2.syr.edu (8.14.7/8.14.7) with ESMTP id t4ILLd4C006035 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Mon, 18 May 2015 17:21:40 -0400
Received: from EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu (128.230.108.144) by EX13-MBX-01.ad.syr.edu (128.230.108.131) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.847.32; Mon, 18 May 2015 17:21:39 -0400
Received: from EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu ([128.230.108.144]) by EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu ([128.230.108.144]) with mapi id 15.00.0847.030; Mon, 18 May 2015 17:21:33 -0400
From: Milton L Mueller <mueller@syr.edu>
To: Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com>
Thread-Topic: [Ianaplan] cwg legal review
Thread-Index: AQHQkYGTBRb/dGjv6UOqFoOLTRxLJ52CTxuA//++XgCAAFVzAP//2OOQ
Date: Mon, 18 May 2015 21:21:32 +0000
Message-ID: <0e32bae4f0fd4bfc9dcf845df16dca7a@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu>
References: <A1682424-DD87-49D5-9DFF-191E5A7E67BD@viagenie.ca> <CA+9kkMD6gPB_K+6ibkfUVsOJV4wsCswyMLxp3thj2kJJ9YOi-A@mail.gmail.com> <a9044b7276f149a4a1d064a5ad043f9f@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <CA+9kkMDeXqN2GGOcO71pmWHqx2wsTx5ZT0H+q72+G8RKU-OomA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CA+9kkMDeXqN2GGOcO71pmWHqx2wsTx5ZT0H+q72+G8RKU-OomA@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [108.26.56.166]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_0e32bae4f0fd4bfc9dcf845df16dca7aEX13MBX13adsyredu_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10432:5.14.151, 1.0.33, 0.0.0000 definitions=2015-05-18_04:2015-05-18,2015-05-18,1970-01-01 signatures=0
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 spamscore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 adultscore=0 bulkscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=7.0.1-1402240000 definitions=main-1505180271
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ianaplan/aNRKKrS16myIr0KCkaeatpRDvMY>
Cc: Marc Blanchet <marc.blanchet@viagenie.ca>, "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 21:21:47 -0000
In that context, it is possible I misunderstood their preference for flexibility. MM: The legal advisors are not supposed to have preferences, they are supposed to provide advice that enables the community members involved in the CWG to choose their own preferences. This is a point I had not understood from the other documents, which appear to state that IRS's determination of non-profit status was hard to predict. MM: I am at a loss to understand how ISOC’s PRI, which runs .org, and ICANN, which collects large revenues from the domain name industry, could achieve this status and a small entity running some technical registries could not. But LLC could be a fallback… Would I be correct in inferring that if LLC were to construct an operating agreement, you believe it would convey responsibilities and limitations on the directors which would be similar to the public benefit corporation? MM: I am not sure I understand the point of negotiating a LLC operating agreement if it was intended to mimic the already-established constraints and incentives of a PBC. And even if it did, it might take a long time to do. We would be wading into uncharted waters, creating something entirely new. A PBC gets you there immediately and by default.
- [Ianaplan] cwg legal review Marc Blanchet
- Re: [Ianaplan] cwg legal review Ted Hardie
- Re: [Ianaplan] cwg legal review Milton L Mueller
- Re: [Ianaplan] cwg legal review Ted Hardie
- Re: [Ianaplan] cwg legal review Milton L Mueller