[CCWG-ACCT] Clarification about Greg's response

Mathieu Weill mathieu.weill at afnic.fr
Thu Dec 22 15:08:12 UTC 2016

Dear Seun,

First, there are different interpretations of the WS1 report regarding the 
scope of work of the Jurisdiction subgroup.  This is important to recognize 
and acknowledge.

While discussion of ICANN’s place of incorporation is not central to the 
work of the incumbent subgroup, as per the recommendations of our WS1 
report, should the subgroup identify an issue where it appears that the only 
apparent solution would be a change in ICANN’s place of incorporation, then 
the issue would be discussed, since we don’t want to rule out any 
discussions that can help the subgroup produce a better and complete 

To that end, the subgroup must keep in mind that having ICANN move its place 
of incorporation materially means dismantling the accountability framework 
of WS1.  Indeed, it could mean dismantling ICANN as we know it and building 
a new organization from the ground up, hence the difficulty in implementing 
such a task without huge risks around it.”

In addition, we know that:

•             ICANN’s incorporation and location in California was listed as 
one of the existing accountability mechanisms at the very beginning of our 
work in WS1;

•             ICANN’s Articles of Incorporation (which is treated the same 
as a fundamental Bylaw) say that ICANN’s HQ is in California;

•             We need consensus on each recommendation, at the plenary level 
and with the Chartering Orgs and the Board.

You are most welcome to join the subgroup, bearing in mind that we need to 
find a way forward that is suitable to all. As is often the case in such 
discussions, listening to each other is even more important than speaking 
up, if we want to ensure a constructive outcome.

We hope this (delayed) response is helpful to you, and look forward to your 
further contributions.


Thomas, Leon & Mathieu

PS : many thanks to Greg Shatan for his support in drafting this response.

De : Seun Ojedeji [mailto:seun.ojedeji at gmail.com]
Envoyé : mercredi 14 décembre 2016 22:16
À : Mathieu Weill
Cc : Accountability Cross Community
Objet : Clarification about Greg's response

Dear Co-Chairs,

I figured I should create a new thread for my question to avoid any 
mis-understanding as my question is not in response to any of the 4 
"jurisdiction questions" but a clarification on scope of the jurisdiction 
sub-group with respect to the WS1 proposal.

I look forward to Greg's response.


On Wed, Dec 14, 2016 at 5:26 PM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com> 

Dear Co-Chairs,

As a follow-up to my question on the call and based on Greg's response which 
I think may be beyond the jurisdiction scope as stipulated in the WS1 
proposal. I like to get further clarity for the record.

Let me re-state my question again: "is change of ICANN's current 
jurisdiction of incorporation open for debate within WS2 hence can be an(or 
one of the) outcome from the jurisdiction sub-group"?

Greg's Response was "somewhat yes" - if there is an issue that warrants it 
then it will be recommended.

While I have no problem leaving such option open for discussion in future 
(perhaps by other group even though it's been discussed significantly in the 
past), and ofcourse the actions of the new US govt could trigger such need 
especially if the ICANN Board is convinced as such but that is not the case 
as as today.

I am concerned that the sub-group on jurisdiction seem to imply place of 
incorporation is within their scope hence may probably be expending 
resources on that discussion point. Resources which includes volunteer time 
and most importantly legal working hours which isn't cheap from experience 
;-). In addition, the unnecessary tension(most importantly the political 
ones) that this would create cannot be under estimated - ICANN just had a 
major structural reform and should be given time to settle and live a normal 
life for once ;-).

I will appreciate if Greg could confirm whether i have parsed his response 
accurately and also provide reference to appropriate section of WS1 proposal 
to support his response.


Sent from my LG G4
Kindly excuse brevity and typos

On 14 Dec 2016 08:44, "Mathieu Weill" <mathieu.weill at afnic.fr> wrote:

Dear Colleagues,

On behalf of the jurisdiction subgroup rapporteurs, please find attached two 
documents that will be discussed in the upcoming plenary.



De : Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com]
Envoyé : mercredi 14 décembre 2016 07:37
À : Mathieu.Weill at afnic.fr; León Felipe Sánchez Ambía; Thomas Rickert; 
acct-staff at icann.org
Objet : Jurisdiction Proposed Questions and Poll Results

​Co-Chairs and Staff:

The Jurisdiction Subgroup is considering distributing a questionnaire. The 
first attachment shows the proposed preamble (introduction to the questions) 
and each of the questions proposed in the Subgroup.

The second attachment shows the results of a poll taken in the Subgroup to 
get a sense of support in the group for each of the questions.

These documents should be sent to the CCWG Plenary for discussion.


Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org



Seun Ojedeji,
Federal University Oye-Ekiti
web:      http://www.fuoye.edu.ng
Mobile: +2348035233535
alt email:  <http://goog_1872880453> seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng

Bringing another down does not take you up - think about your action!

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20161222/a5cd2bea/attachment.html>

More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list