<div dir="ltr">Hello Malcolm,<br><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
<br>
<br>
I didn't see the oral hearing, but I wouldn't characterise this written<br>
document as 'Of all the questions that could be asked they really do<br>
seem to be focused on the question of HQ location.'.<br><span class=""><font color="#888888"> <br></font></span></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Three Senators asked written questions post hearing. The lead question for two of the three Senators focused on the location of ICANN's headquarters. This after the oral hearing in which Fadi assured the Senators that ICANN's jurisdiction would remain in the United Stares. To me, this suggests a focus of the Senate Commerce committee on the location of ICANN's headquarters.</div><div><br></div><div>Representative Sean Duffy has compiled a list of questions relating to the transition which he has transmitted to the Chair of the House Judiciary Committee concurrently requesting House hearings on the matter. A copy of that letter is attached. Please note that here, again, concerns regarding First Amendment protections post transition are expressed, specifically "What First Amendment functions will there be should IANA functions transition to ICANN?". Notwithstanding the assumption regarding the loci of the transition I'd suggest this is something we do need to further discuss in the context of our accountability efforts.</div><div><br></div><div>Best,</div><div><br></div><div>Ed Morris</div></div></div></div>