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.