[CCWG-ACCT] Fwd: draft proposal for AoC section 8 - for our next call

[Steve DelBianco]

regarding ICANN offices, we are not recommending any changes to present ICANN bylaws, which already says ICANN shall be in Los Angeles.   So we are leaving jurisdiction alone.


If we attempt to change the present bylaws to just say California, we are opening the issue of jurisdiction.    That will draw attention to jurisdiction -- both from those who would want a US location in fundamental bylaws, as well as those who don't want US jurisdiction to remain in the bylaws.


I don't think the risks of that debate are justified by the potential savings in real estate costs.


Besides, if ICANN someday wanted to relocate in California to save office costs, I doubt the community would block that change to the bylaws.


________________________________
From: Drazek, Keith <kdrazek at verisign.com>
Sent: Friday, April 24, 2015 9:14 PM
To: Edward Morris
Cc: Steve DelBianco; accountability-cross-community at icann.org
Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Fwd: draft proposal for AoC section 8 - for our next call

Ed, thanks for this. I agree with your suggestion. The key, in my mind, is securing the accountability mechanisms in applicable law and jurisdiction. I'm not a lawyer, but for these purposes it seems that the State of California would be explicit enough.

Best,
Keith


On Apr 24, 2015, at 8:13 PM, Edward Morris <egmorris1 at toast.net<mailto:egmorris1 at toast.net>> wrote:

HI everyone,

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.

Ed

-apologies for not thinking of this earlier.

On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 4:38 PM, Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco at netchoice.org<mailto:sdelbianco at netchoice.org>> wrote:

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
NetChoice
http://www.NetChoice.org<http://www.netchoice.org/> and  http://blog.netchoice.org<http://blog.netchoice.org/>
+1.703.615.6206<tel:+1.703.615.6206>



_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community


_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20150425/788ad8a3/attachment.html>