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> 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> 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



_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community


_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community