Dear all, I could not attend last call, but I had a look at the transcript and here are my 2c. This is also meant to serve as a start a discussion, so feel free to debate, challenge, refute, ... I don't have the ICANN experience that some of you have, but from what I understand it is preferable to keep ourselves focused on our precise task, which means *excluding *from consideration re/incorporation (or whatever you want to call it) of ICANN outside of California and/or US. Not because this precise issue is not an issue. I am convinced it is, and should certainly be discussed, especially considering long term. However we will not "square" this "circle" in this subgroup. I think if we want to produce something that will see some use, we should focus on how jurisdiction issues interact with the accountability of ICANN, assuming that ICANN stays as it is roughly speaking, so with the current organisational setup. It is true that in jurisdiction we can include the location where ICANN is incorporated. This has an effect on accountability, to the extent of California corporations law and any other Californian or US federal law I might not be aware of. However I don't think we are there to consider *where else *could be better, because the options are just too many, too different and entail radical change in the foundations of ICANN which are just beyond what we are supposed to do, I think. So rather than radical changes, we should aim at improvements of "the existing," so mechanisms, structures, contracts... So to conclude on that point, we should not overly restrict what layers of jurisdiction we consider, but I think we should agree not to consider that specific one. Thiago in the last call rightly mentioned that "accountability" is an open and equivocal concept. I think we should interpret it broadly. In that sense and referring to the CCWG charter that Greg circulated before, accountability can be framed as a system of "checks and balances." While this concept is distinctively American, I think we can agree that accountability evokes responsibility and justification for action. I would conceive improving ICANN's accountability as a process that would improve *predictability *of ICANN's actions as well as improve the understanding stakeholders have of ICANN's interests, motives, reasons for doing A and not B, etc. In that sense accountable shares some meaning with transparent, but not completely. Transparency is one component of accountability. "Raw" transparency is rather useless, to the extent that the ordinary person involved with ICANN at volunteer level is not able to sift through the mass of documents or understand what is going on. If we now consider jurisdiction, which is also a broad and equivocal concept, it may intersect accountability at several levels (the "layers" of jurisdiction). I don't think it is possible to realise the extent of this intersection just as a reflection exercise. In that regard I think that both the questionnaire and the case studies are useful so to distinguish what these intersection points may be. These two things (cases and questionnaires) are pretty much the only "empirical" means that we have at our disposal and they are certainly better than just abstract reflections on the question of jurisdiction and accountability... And finally to contribute to something that was discussed in the call, I think it is a good idea to further inquire on the questionnaire responses with the respondent, when such inquiry can shed further light on the response. So these discussions should not be a debate with the respondent over their answers, but more us listening to what they have to say (again when relevant; if answers are just straight no's then whatever) Best, -- Raphaël Beauregard-Lacroix Sciences Po Law School 2017 LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rapha%C3%ABl-beauregard-lacroix-88733786/> - @rbl0012 <https://twitter.com/rbl0112> - M: +33 7 86 39 18 15