Nigel, I have no idea what the perceived gain of incorporating in the UK would be, and of course, the community's proposal to have ICANN as a membership organization (CWG Second Draft) did not carry the day, so we ended up with what we have. But let's not analyze it, unless it's over a beer. In any case, we should be discussing issues and recommendations, rather than alternate jurisdictions.... Greg On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 12:20 PM Nigel Roberts <nigel@channelisles.net> wrote:
I think you are wrong.
It's totally clear to me that moving ICANN's place of incorporation to England, and reincorporating as a company limited by guarantee, having Members (who can be legal as well as natural persons) would be a far superior model. Let me think of an example . .. ah yes, Nominet UK!
However, is the actually perceived gain worth the effort? Well, I rather doubt it. And there'd be opposition.
So why not make the best of what we have??
And if the gedankenexperiment of moving to London doesn't work, then it's not going to work for Istanbul, Cairo, Singapore or even Brussels or Zurich. (Much as I'd like the excuse to visit Singapore regularly.)
On 19/06/17 15:40, Mueller, Milton L wrote:
Please pardon my late intervention. We were presented with this question:
*Question: Is considering or recommending changes to ICANN's status as a not-for-profit California corporation within the scope of the Subgroup?*
Two things seem obvious to me:
1. The issue IS within the intended scope of the subgroup, and
2. There is overwhelming consensus AGAINST recommending changes to ICANN’s status as a nonprofit California public benefit corporation.
It seems to me that most of the debate is confusing issue #1 with issue #2. The entire discussion has not developed any real alternative, much less a clearly superior one, to California jurisdiction. The identified problems with US jurisdiction (mainly OFAC) can be addressed without moving ICANN’s place of incorporation. So let’s stop trying to dishonestly pre-empt resolution of the jurisdiction issue by ruling certain discussions “out of scope.” Let’s resolve it honestly by developing and acknowledging consensus around the fact that other than the meaningless mirage of “international jurisdiction” there is no better framework within which to work than California law.
The debate about scope, in other words, is a diversion from the substantive issue, and I wish the chairs and the Americans in the subgroup would stop trying to pre-empt substantive debate with scope debate.
I will not be in Johannesburg so I hope people who agree with me can take this perspective into the f2f meeting.
Dr. Milton L. Mueller
Professor, School of Public Policy
Georgia Institute of Technology
*From:*ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Greg Shatan *Sent:* Thursday, June 8, 2017 9:29 AM *To:* ws2-jurisdiction <ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> *Cc:* acct-staff@icann.org *Subject:* [Ws2-jurisdiction] Question Presented
Please see attached.
_______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
_______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction