Ed, thanks for this. I agree with your suggestion. The key, in my mind, is securing the accountability mechanisms in applicable law and jurisdiction. I'm not a lawyer, but for these purposes it seems that the State of California would be explicit enough. Best, Keith On Apr 24, 2015, at 8:13 PM, Edward Morris <egmorris1@toast.net<mailto:egmorris1@toast.net>> wrote: HI everyone, Are we sure we want to restrict ICANN to a Los Angeles headquarters? I'm not trying to bring up the jurisdiction issue in this post, more of a real estate issue. If a dozen years from now ICANN needs a new headquarters do we really want to restrict it to Los Angeles County if real estate prices, recruitment concerns or other issues would make it a better idea to set up shop in Orange, Riverside or another county within California? If there is a legal requirement to state the county in the Bylaws so be it; if not, I'd suggest that "State of California, United States of America" should suffice. Ed -apologies for not thinking of this earlier. On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 4:38 PM, Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@netchoice.org<mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org>> wrote: Per Mathieu's request, here is a one page summary of proposed way to deal with AoC section 8. I tried to reflect suggestions from our last call. Look forward to discussion. — Steve DelBianco Executive Director NetChoice http://www.NetChoice.org<http://www.netchoice.org/> and http://blog.netchoice.org<http://blog.netchoice.org/> +1.703.615.6206<tel:+1.703.615.6206> _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community