(Nearly) everything is feasible (was: somehting else.....)
Amadeu Abril i Abril (Amadeu@nominalia.com)
Tue, 22 Dec 1998 18:20:30 +0100
Kent Crispin wrote:
>
> On Tue, Dec 22, 1998 at 10:54:22AM +0100, Roberto Gaetano wrote:
> [...]
> >
> > Can I have a clear confirmation (in words that a layman with average IQ like
> > myself can understand) that
> >
> > It is intended that Supporting Organizations and their councils will have a
> > separate organizational identity from that of ICANN, and that ICANN's
> > relationship with the SO's, to the extent necessary apart from the bylaws,
> > will be by contract.
> >
> > means that the DNSO must be incorporated separately?
ç
As Kent already replied, this seems to be the easiset, fastest and cleanest
solution under current constraints (ie, ICANN's note on SOs), if not the only.
[...]
> To me, separate incorporation is just the cheapest way to get
> liability coverage. But you raise a *very* interesting point --
> would it be possible for 1) the DNSO to have a "separate
> organizational identity"; 2) the DNSO to be separately incorporated
> (for strictly liability reasons); but 3) still a division of ICANN?
Well, "division", as you say, is not the word to consider hee. If you have two
corporations, you have two, different, legal fictions: two "legal persons".
With "formally (egally) differnet" names, seats, memberhsip....
But, as you say, nothing prevents you form establishing "autmatic linkages" of
any sort: shared seat; "replicated" membership... In this case, you could
simply provide, if tyis is what your wre looking for, that anyone joining
corporation B (DNSO) as a member, be "automatically" (qith some caveats)
become a member of corporation A (ICANN.
If this is needed or not is a different issue.
The bottom line is: nearly everything is feasible in corporate law(s). In most
of them, and if not, jsut shop around for a more flexible one ;-) But feasible
does not always mean simple, or even practical.
Amadeu, after allowing his eyes some well-desserved rest ;-))