Hi Karel,

A very good document that clearly shows how different sole member and designator models are, is attached. It has been done by the ccwg counsel. 

I provide a rough and non-exhaustive summary 

1. sole designator lacks some of the statutory rights that sole member has : for example in amending the bylaws, the power of amendment rests ultimately in the hands of the board but in sole member it rests in the hands of the community 

2. In many instances, the designator model ultimate power of enforceability rests in its ability to recall the board. In sole member, the community can ultimately take ICANN to court. [look at the reconsider/reject changes to ICANN standard bylaws in the doc.]

3. Sole designator statutory rights are weaker than sole member. for example it does not have the statutory right of inspection. 

4. I am not certain but it seems like legally sole designator power in rejecting strategic plan and budget plan is limited

All in all, as I said at NCUC meeting sole membership model give us access to court. in Sole membership model enforcement mechanism is direct enforcement while in designator model it is indirect, meaning by threatening to recall the board. 

Hope this helps. 

On 26 October 2015 at 03:36, Karel Douglas <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
Excellent job Aarti. 

I still maintain that alot of people are not clear on the different models and why one should be prefered over the other. I am one such person. James did a great job explaining the models at the NCUC outreach in Dublin for which I am deeply thankful. 

However It might be useful by way of introduction and/or explanation to write a quick sentence about each model so that there can be context to your article.I'm sure readers will appreciate it. Otherwise some people may not appreciate your critical analysis of the current dilemma. 

Keep up the great work.I'm looking forward to further articles.

Warm regards

Karel DOUGLAS

On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 5:07 AM, James Gannon <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
Great summary Aarti and it was a pleasure to meet you in person!

-James

From: <[log in to unmask]> on behalf of Aarti Bhavana <[log in to unmask]>
Reply-To: Aarti Bhavana <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Friday 23 October 2015 at 10:05 a.m.
To: "[log in to unmask]" <[log in to unmask]>, "[log in to unmask]" <[log in to unmask]>, "[log in to unmask]" <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: [bestbits] Post on ICANN54- Accountability

Dear All,

It was wonderful to meet many of you in Dublin this week. It made my first ICANN meeting a fantastic experience. I have written a short post on my impression of the developments in the accountability proposal. I would love to receive your feedback and suggestions.

Warm regards,
Aarti

--


Aarti Bhavana | Research Fellow
Centre for Communication Governance | National Law University, Delhi | Sector-14, Dwarka, New Delhi - 110078 | Cell: (+91) 965-464-6846 | Fax: (+91) 11-280-34256 | www.ccgdelhi.org . www.ccgtlr.org . www.nludelhi.ac.in | Twitter: @ccgdelhi . @aartibhavana 




--
Farzaneh