Thanks Greg. I found the document to be very illuminating, not so much for Fadi's answers but for the questions being asked by members of Congress. Of all the questions that could be asked they really do seem to be focused on the question of HQ location.
I thought Senator Blunt's mention of the first amendment was interesting: as a private corporation ICANN is not generally required to offer such protections although if it were to be considered a government contractor, which arguably it currently is, there are first amendment responsibilities that do attach. As ICANN's status as a government contractor would presumably end with termination of the IANA contract should we be looking more closely at the implications this would have on speech provisions? In terms of accountability I'm most concerned with the terminations impact on staff's speech rights, which US courts have held are greater for employees of government contractors than for purely private employers. Is this something we should be looking at in this group? Are there any other first amendment issues that change when ICANN's relationship with the USG changes post transition?
Sorry for the questions without answers but better to be asked now by us than by a U.S. Senator later.
Thanks,
Ed Morris
Sent from my iPhone
I note these include responses relating to the AoC and the US "jurisdiction" issue.
Greg Shatan
<chehade-to-thune-13apr15-en.pdf>