From: ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mueller, Milton L
Sent: Monday, June 19, 2017 9:40 AM
To: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com>; ws2-jurisdiction <ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org>
Cc: acct-staff@icann.org
Subject: Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Question Presented
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:
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.