Dear Co-Chairs, I do not have an issue to postpone, in particular in light of the comment from Sabine which is quite valid in my view. However, where did we agree *EVER* to let these decisions be made by the Legal Sub Team? My understanding/recollection, is in fact that we said that the decisions are made in the plenum but communicated via the SubTeam to Counsel. And, because you are going to ignore this anyway, I object for the record. The use of the word "tendentious" by the archetypical lobbyist is rather fascinating. This ad hominem comment reminds me of Rhetorics 102: "Obfuscate, Oppose, Ignore, Ridicule". el On 2015-05-12 07:45 , León Felipe Sánchez Ambía wrote:

Counsel,

Given the discussion we’re holding. I please ask you to put this assignment on hold until the legal sub-team comes to a conclusion.

Best regards,

León

...

El 11/05/2015, a las 22:29, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> escribió:

Ed,

This was a comment in the Public Comment forum. Mr. Hill (who happens to be resident in Switzerland, I believe) doesn't need an SOI. I believe Mr. Hill made several rather lengthy and somewhat tendentious submissions to the ICG and possibly to the other communities, in a somewhat similar vein. You might be amused by them.

Greg

On Mon, May 11, 2015 at 7:55 PM, Edward Morris <egmorris1@toast.net <mailto:egmorris1@toast.net>> wrote:

Thanks Josh for your response.

I once again want to reiterate my opposition to any further inquiry of this sort that focuses exclusively on Switzerland. I think it is absolutely ridiculous at this stage to open up the question of jurisdiction, but if we are going to do so I request that Delaware, Ireland, Estonia and Iceland all be examined under the same terms as Switzerland.

The post by Mr. Hill which prompted this inquiry did talk about ICANN's incorporation, not just that of SO/AC's. It was also very prejudiced in that:

Quite apart from that, ICANN should not be incorporated in the USA, or in any other powerful state that might be tempted to interfere with ICANN for political or economic reasons. It should be incorporated in a neutral state that is unlikely to interfere, for example Switzerland.

it explicitly rejects jurisdiction in the United States on grounds that a "powerful state" may be more tempted to interfere with ICANN for "political or economic reasons". It is my view that: 1. the United States has generally been a good steward of the internet, and 2. history is replete with examples of less powerful neutral states acting in their own self interest. Switzerland included. I'd prefer that a change in jurisdiction be based upon fact rather than upon a speculative theoretical assumption. I also sense this is neither the time or place for this discussion.

I'm sorry for being a bit of a pain on this but it's a matter of principle. I'm opposed to opening up jurisdiction at this point for a number of reasons that most of us are familiar with. However, if we are going to do so equity and simple competence in fulfilling our duties oblige us to look at more options than a single mountainous country in central Europe.

On another related matter: I have been unable to locate Mr. Hill's SOI. If somebody would be so kind as to direct me to it I would be appreciative. I'm sure it is my oversight.

Thanks,

Ed

[...]