Fwd: draft proposal for AoC section 8 - for our next call
Per Mathieu's request, here is a one page summary of proposed way to deal with AoC section 8. I tried to reflect suggestions from our last call. Look forward to discussion. ? -? Steve DelBianco Executive Director NetChoice http://www.NetChoice.org<http://www.netchoice.org/> and http://blog.netchoice.org<http://blog.netchoice.org/> +1.703.615.6206<tel:+1.703.615.6206>
Dear Steve, Thanks for the proposal. I would rephrase the following sentence "The CCWG is considering whether bylaws Article 18 Section 1 should be among the bylaws sections listed as “Fundamental Bylaws”, which would thereby require positive approval by Members/Designators." to the following, just to be clear we are considering two options: "The CCWG is considering whether bylaws Article 18 Section 1 should keep its current status or be among the bylaws sections listed as “Fundamental Bylaws”. In the latter case, any changes to it would require positive approval by Members/Designators. " Note: native speakers (and others) should feel free to optimize the language. Regards, Secretário Pedro Ivo Ferraz da Silva Divisão da Sociedade da Informação (DI) Ministério das Relações Exteriores - Brasil T: + 55 61 2030-6609 Secretary Pedro Ivo Ferraz da Silva Division of Information Society (DI) Ministry of External Relations - Brazil T: + 55 61 2030-6609 -----Mensagem original----- De: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] Em nome de Steve DelBianco Enviada em: sexta-feira, 24 de abril de 2015 12:38 Para: accountability-cross-community@icann.org Assunto: [CCWG-ACCT] Fwd: draft proposal for AoC section 8 - for our next call Per Mathieu's request, here is a one page summary of proposed way to deal with AoC section 8. I tried to reflect suggestions from our last call. Look forward to discussion. — Steve DelBianco Executive Director NetChoice http://www.NetChoice.org <http://www.netchoice.org/> and http://blog.netchoice.org <http://blog.netchoice.org/> +1.703.615.6206
HI everyone, Are we sure we want to restrict ICANN to a Los Angeles headquarters? I'm not trying to bring up the jurisdiction issue in this post, more of a real estate issue. If a dozen years from now ICANN needs a new headquarters do we really want to restrict it to Los Angeles County if real estate prices, recruitment concerns or other issues would make it a better idea to set up shop in Orange, Riverside or another county within California? If there is a legal requirement to state the county in the Bylaws so be it; if not, I'd suggest that "State of California, United States of America" should suffice. Ed -apologies for not thinking of this earlier. On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 4:38 PM, Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@netchoice.org> wrote:
Per Mathieu's request, here is a one page summary of proposed way to deal with AoC section 8. I tried to reflect suggestions from our last call.
Look forward to discussion.
— Steve DelBianco Executive Director NetChoice http://www.NetChoice.org <http://www.netchoice.org/> and http://blog.netchoice.org +1.703.615.6206
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Ed, thanks for this. I agree with your suggestion. The key, in my mind, is securing the accountability mechanisms in applicable law and jurisdiction. I'm not a lawyer, but for these purposes it seems that the State of California would be explicit enough. Best, Keith On Apr 24, 2015, at 8:13 PM, Edward Morris <egmorris1@toast.net<mailto:egmorris1@toast.net>> wrote: HI everyone, Are we sure we want to restrict ICANN to a Los Angeles headquarters? I'm not trying to bring up the jurisdiction issue in this post, more of a real estate issue. If a dozen years from now ICANN needs a new headquarters do we really want to restrict it to Los Angeles County if real estate prices, recruitment concerns or other issues would make it a better idea to set up shop in Orange, Riverside or another county within California? If there is a legal requirement to state the county in the Bylaws so be it; if not, I'd suggest that "State of California, United States of America" should suffice. Ed -apologies for not thinking of this earlier. On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 4:38 PM, Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@netchoice.org<mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org>> wrote: Per Mathieu's request, here is a one page summary of proposed way to deal with AoC section 8. I tried to reflect suggestions from our last call. Look forward to discussion. — Steve DelBianco Executive Director NetChoice http://www.NetChoice.org<http://www.netchoice.org/> and http://blog.netchoice.org<http://blog.netchoice.org/> +1.703.615.6206<tel:+1.703.615.6206> _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
regarding ICANN offices, we are not recommending any changes to present ICANN bylaws, which already says ICANN shall be in Los Angeles. So we are leaving jurisdiction alone. If we attempt to change the present bylaws to just say California, we are opening the issue of jurisdiction. That will draw attention to jurisdiction -- both from those who would want a US location in fundamental bylaws, as well as those who don't want US jurisdiction to remain in the bylaws. I don't think the risks of that debate are justified by the potential savings in real estate costs. Besides, if ICANN someday wanted to relocate in California to save office costs, I doubt the community would block that change to the bylaws. ________________________________ From: Drazek, Keith <kdrazek@verisign.com> Sent: Friday, April 24, 2015 9:14 PM To: Edward Morris Cc: Steve DelBianco; accountability-cross-community@icann.org Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Fwd: draft proposal for AoC section 8 - for our next call Ed, thanks for this. I agree with your suggestion. The key, in my mind, is securing the accountability mechanisms in applicable law and jurisdiction. I'm not a lawyer, but for these purposes it seems that the State of California would be explicit enough. Best, Keith On Apr 24, 2015, at 8:13 PM, Edward Morris <egmorris1@toast.net<mailto:egmorris1@toast.net>> wrote: HI everyone, Are we sure we want to restrict ICANN to a Los Angeles headquarters? I'm not trying to bring up the jurisdiction issue in this post, more of a real estate issue. If a dozen years from now ICANN needs a new headquarters do we really want to restrict it to Los Angeles County if real estate prices, recruitment concerns or other issues would make it a better idea to set up shop in Orange, Riverside or another county within California? If there is a legal requirement to state the county in the Bylaws so be it; if not, I'd suggest that "State of California, United States of America" should suffice. Ed -apologies for not thinking of this earlier. On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 4:38 PM, Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@netchoice.org<mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org>> wrote: Per Mathieu's request, here is a one page summary of proposed way to deal with AoC section 8. I tried to reflect suggestions from our last call. Look forward to discussion. ? -? Steve DelBianco Executive Director NetChoice http://www.NetChoice.org<http://www.netchoice.org/> and http://blog.netchoice.org<http://blog.netchoice.org/> +1.703.615.6206<tel:+1.703.615.6206> _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
participants (4)
-
Drazek, Keith -
Edward Morris -
Pedro Ivo Ferraz da Silva -
Steve DelBianco