Thanks Paul R.

 

Greg, I agree with this – mostly.  I do think it is worth noting in our final report that the issue of moving ICANN’s formation jurisdiction outside of California was discussed at great length by this group and there was no consensus to do so.  Otherwise, our report would look like we just assumed that California formation would remain but did not discuss it.  That would not be accurate. 

 

Best,

Paul M.

 

 

Paul D. McGrady Jr.

Partner

Chair, Trademark, Domain Names and Brand Enforcement Practice

Winston & Strawn LLP 35 W. Wacker Drive Chicago, IL 60601-9703

D: +1 (312) 558-5963

F: +1 (312) 558-5700

Bio | VCard | Email | winston.com

 

 

 

 

 

Hi Greg

 

Per our discussion on the call today, I would suggest a slight amendment to this strawman proposal.  My take is that, as Avri suggested, the Subgroup should continue its work on the basis of an assumption that the jurisdiction of incorporation will remain unchanged and that our report to the Plenary will state that as an assumption (rather than, as David has suggested (and I would support) as a conclusion or recommendation).  This will enable us to work forward on real issues of accountability effects arising from incorporation and move past the endless recircling we are doing.

 

The practical consequences of this choice would be to confine our discussion in two ways.  When a potential issue that effects accountability is raised (e.g. OFAC or in rem) it would not be a response to say “well, we are stuck with that because we are in California” but it would also no longer be a suitable response to say “we can eliminate that problem by moving to XXX”  Our work would, as I understand it, focus on the question of “can that problem be mitigated by the application of other aspects of California/US/contractual law” (that is law that assumes that incorporation is unchanged but, for example, admits of the possibility that ICANN might be able to contract around some problems).  I would support this approach, as did a majority of those on the call (maybe even everyone).

 

Thus I would reformulate your submission to the Plenary as a report of what we have determined as the way forward – namely to assume that the place of incorporation will not change, but to make explicit the premise that our assumption is without prejudice to the issue being raised in some other broader forum.

 

Cheers

Paul

 

Paul Rosenzweig

paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com

O: +1 (202) 547-0660

M: +1 (202) 329-9650

VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739

www.redbranchconsulting.com

My PGP Key: https://keys.mailvelope.com/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x9A830097CA066684

 

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