A significant problem with this precaution is that it creates the firm impression that we have considered processes or proposals where "all roads start at the California courts."

This is manifestly false, or my memory is really slipping. And it creates an impression about the tenor of our work that is misleading and creates greater suspicions about our outcomes. 

Furthermore, following on Paul's final point, this is outright pandering to those members of the GAC who would like to get ICANN out of California (and the US) and those members who have raised sovereignty concerns as an issue with recourse to courts.

Greg

On Sat, Oct 17, 2015 at 6:34 PM, Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> wrote:

To quote Rubens:

 

 

TWO, WATCH CAREFULLY FOR ACCOUNTABILITY MEASURES THAT REFOCUS AND ANCHOR ICANN IN THE CALIFORNIA COURTS AS OPPOSED TO CONTINUING THE PROJECT OF GLOBALIZATION WE ALL STARTED.  WATCH FOR THAT.

IF ALL ROADS END THERE, THAT'S ONE THING.  BUT IF ALL ROADS START AT THE COURTS, WE HAVE A PROBLEM.  SO THIS IS THE DISTINCTION.

 

Agree with this precaution, but it's curious that the board proposal actually increases that dependency. 

 

ð Me:  Indeed it does.  Perhaps more interestingly, this statement from Fadi is in direct contrast to his assurance to the US Congress that ICANN had no intention of leaving California.  Irrespective of which view you take, it is quite depressing that the CEO repeatedly engages in situational assurance, telling everyone what they want to hear, instead of wjat the actual views are …

Paul

 

 

 


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