Irrespective of what Fadi said or says, he is leaving and his words and even commitments will not necessarily be honored by the next administration and so on.  To the extent that we believe California law provides a reasonable basis for the ongoing legal framework of ICANN - particularly to the extent the eventual agreement relies on it - we should ensure that said framework gets "baked" into ICANN's bylaws to provide certainty going forward.

Ken




On Oct 17, 2015, at 6:36 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

 

 

 

Paul Rosenzweig

paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com

O: +1 (202) 547-0660

M: +1 (202) 329-9650

VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739

Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066

Link to my PGP Key

 

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