Dear Seun,
First, there are different interpretations of the WS1 report regarding the scope of work of the Jurisdiction subgroup. This is important to recognize and acknowledge.
While discussion of ICANN’s place of incorporation is not central to the work of the incumbent subgroup, as per the recommendations of our WS1 report, should the subgroup identify an issue where it appears that the only apparent solution would be a change in ICANN’s place of incorporation, then the issue would be discussed, since we don’t want to rule out any discussions that can help the subgroup produce a better and complete outcome.
To that end, the subgroup must keep in mind that having ICANN move its place of incorporation materially means dismantling the accountability framework of WS1. Indeed, it could mean dismantling ICANN as we know it and building a new organization from the ground up, hence the difficulty in implementing such a task without huge risks around it.”
In addition, we know that:
• ICANN’s incorporation and location in California was listed as one of the existing accountability mechanisms at the very beginning of our work in WS1;
• ICANN’s Articles of Incorporation (which is treated the same as a fundamental Bylaw) say that ICANN’s HQ is in California;
• We need consensus on each recommendation, at the plenary level and with the Chartering Orgs and the Board.
You are most welcome to join the subgroup, bearing in mind that we need to find a way forward that is suitable to all. As is often the case in such discussions, listening to each other is even more important than speaking up, if we want to ensure a constructive outcome.
We hope this (delayed) response is helpful to you, and look forward to your further contributions.
Best,
Thomas, Leon & Mathieu
PS : many thanks to Greg Shatan for his support in drafting this response.
De : Seun Ojedeji [mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com]
Envoyé : mercredi 14 décembre 2016 22:16
À : Mathieu Weill
Cc : Accountability Cross Community
Objet : Clarification about Greg's response
Dear Co-Chairs,
I figured I should create a new thread for my question to avoid any mis-understanding as my question is not in response to any of the 4 "jurisdiction questions" but a clarification on scope of the jurisdiction sub-group with respect to the WS1 proposal.
I look forward to Greg's response.
Regards
On Wed, Dec 14, 2016 at 5:26 PM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Co-Chairs,
As a follow-up to my question on the call and based on Greg's response which I think may be beyond the jurisdiction scope as stipulated in the WS1 proposal. I like to get further clarity for the record.
Let me re-state my question again: "is change of ICANN's current jurisdiction of incorporation open for debate within WS2 hence can be an(or one of the) outcome from the jurisdiction sub-group"?
Greg's Response was "somewhat yes" - if there is an issue that warrants it then it will be recommended.
While I have no problem leaving such option open for discussion in future (perhaps by other group even though it's been discussed significantly in the past), and ofcourse the actions of the new US govt could trigger such need especially if the ICANN Board is convinced as such but that is not the case as as today.
I am concerned that the sub-group on jurisdiction seem to imply place of incorporation is within their scope hence may probably be expending resources on that discussion point. Resources which includes volunteer time and most importantly legal working hours which isn't cheap from experience ;-). In addition, the unnecessary tension(most importantly the political ones) that this would create cannot be under estimated - ICANN just had a major structural reform and should be given time to settle and live a normal life for once ;-).
I will appreciate if Greg could confirm whether i have parsed his response accurately and also provide reference to appropriate section of WS1 proposal to support his response.
Regards
Sent from my LG G4
Kindly excuse brevity and typos
On 14 Dec 2016 08:44, "Mathieu Weill" <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr> wrote: