[CCWG-ACCT] Fwd: draft proposal for AoC section 8 - for our next call
egmorris1 at toast.net
Sat Apr 25 00:12:09 UTC 2015
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.
-apologies for not thinking of this earlier.
On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 4:38 PM, Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco at netchoice.org>
> 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
> http://www.NetChoice.org <http://www.netchoice.org/> and
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community