<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">I agree with Edward that we should not pursue the alternative jurisdiction question on a random basis. I also agree that we need to be mindful of our use of resources.</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">I also think that the question that we ended up posing to counsel ("<span style="font-size:12.8000001907349px;font-family:arial,sans-serif">whether Swiss law would enable the SOs and ACs to act with all powers described in our report WITHOUT the need to establish a legal entity") is completely unrelated to the public comment, other than the reference to Switzerland</span>. In the public comment, Mr. Hill proposes that each SO/AC member (e.g., you and I individually or our employers or governments) be a direct member of ICANN. That's going down a completely different path than the question we posed to counsel. I suggest we unpose the question before we start expending resources.</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">If we want to test the accuracy of the statements in the public comment, we should first decide what those statements are. I actually think this public comment is mostly a series of red herrings and logical fallacies. It boils down in my estimation to:</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">1. The proposition of direct membership.</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">2. The proposition that members of Swiss associations have greater powers ("full powers") than those in California Public Benefit Corporations. (This is supported by citation to a web page that appears to contain all of Swiss civil law, and a section cite that is only the beginning of a very long section. Googling the word "budget," the only reference is irrelevant, so clearly direct authority for his statements about full powers are not to be found on this page.)</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">3. The proposition that we want those greater powers, if any in fact exist.</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">4. The proposition that US incorporation could subject ICANN to something horrible ("unilateral sanctions").</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">5. The proposition that Swiss incorporation, by contrast, would not.</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">2, 4 and 5 are legal questions. If we want to answer them at all, I think we need to answer number 3 before we look at number 2; if the answer is "no," than we don't need to look at number 2.</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">Number 4 has a high FUD factor -- consider that OFAC waivers have never been an issue for ICANN. Number 5 may have some truth, in that Switzerland seems like more of a laissez faire jurisdiction, but 4 and 5 both ask to prove a future event, which is just silly. As for the US, we have a track record of non-interference (both direct and by the passage of laws), other than that directly related to NTIA's stewardship. I would submit this "grass is greener" analysis is a waste of time, and certainly not part of Work Stream 1.</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">To reiterate, it is my strong belief that there is almost certainly nothing to ask counsel about here, and if there is, not now, and not before discussion of the underlying issues.</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">Greg</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, May 11, 2015 at 7:00 PM, Edward Morris <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:egmorris1@toast.net" target="_blank">egmorris1@toast.net</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr">H everybody,<div><br></div><div>I'm opposed to sending this question to independent counsel unless someone can explain to me why Switzerland is chosen as an alternate jurisdiction.</div><div><br></div><div>If there is no particular reason, then if we are to expend resources exploring alternate jurisdictions I would request that resources also be expended to explore the same question under the laws of Delaware (a traditional alternate US state for incorporation), Ireland (a favoured European incorporation jurisdiction for private multinational corporations, which ICANN is), Estonia (a favoured location for cyber companies whose e-residence program may offer certain benefits for SOAC organisations and ICANN itself) and Iceland (a country with highly developed corporate transparency and shareholder participation laws). </div><div><br></div><div>I undestand the instinct to look at Switzerland as an alternate jurisdiction. However, unless one is going to propose changing the nature of ICANN (that of a private corporation) I see no reason to initially assume that Swiss jurisdiction would be superior to that of any other country. I would prefer that we not go down that road at this time, but if we are going to start looking at alternative jurisdictions I respectfully request those jurisdictions previously named in this post also be examined as I believe they may offer possibilities that are superior for our purposes than Switzerland, a nation with highly developed corporate secrecy laws. Of course, others may have additional jurisdictions they wish to explore and I submit that once we start exploring any jurisdiction other than the current one of California we are obliged to explore all those that are suggested in good faith. There is no reason to give Switzerland preference.</div><div><br></div><div>Respectfully,</div><div><br></div><div>Edward Morris</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div><div class="h5">On Mon, May 11, 2015 at 10:49 PM, Mathieu Weill <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr" target="_blank">mathieu.weill@afnic.fr</a>></span> wrote:<br></div></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div><div class="h5">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
Dear Counsel and colleagues,<br>
<br>
Maybe to focus the question a bit and avoid too large a research in
a first step, the key assumption we would like to test is whether
Swiss law would enable the SOs and ACs to act with all powers
described in our report WITHOUT the need to establish a legal entity
associated with the SO or AC. <br>
<br>
Thank you for your help<br>
<br>
Mathieu<br>
<br>
<div>Le 11/05/2015 23:42, León Felipe
Sánchez Ambía a écrit :<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
Dear Counsel,
<div><br>
</div>
<div>A comment has been made in the forum which states:</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>
<pre>In some countries (in particular in Switzerland), non-profit associations
are, by law, accountable to their membership, in the sense that the
membership has full powers to amend the bylaws (called statues in
Switzerland), elect and revoke the Board, approve and review the budget,
etc. See articles 60 ff. of the Swiss Civil Code at:
<a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.admin.ch/opc/en/classified-compilation/19070042/index.html" target="_blank">https://www.admin.ch/opc/en/classified-compilation/19070042/index.html</a></pre>
<div>
<pre>If we accept the principle that accountability is ensured by the members,
then I don't understand why the members of ICANN should not have full powers
to amend the bylaws, set the budget, etc.</pre>
<div>We would like to test the accuracy of this
comment. To get the complete picture, you can find the full
comment here:</div>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><a href="http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-ccwg-accountability-draft-proposal-04may15/msg00000.html" target="_blank">http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-ccwg-accountability-draft-proposal-04may15/msg00000.html</a></div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>This is not urgent so I please ask you kindly to
address the outstanding questions identified before addressing
this comment.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>
<div>Best regards,</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>León</div>
</div>
<br><span><font color="#888888">
</font></span></div><span><font color="#888888">
</font></span></blockquote><span><font color="#888888">
<br>
<pre cols="72">--
*****************************
Mathieu WEILL
AFNIC - directeur général
Tél: <a href="tel:%2B33%201%2039%2030%2083%2006" value="+33139308306" target="_blank">+33 1 39 30 83 06</a>
<a href="mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr" target="_blank">mathieu.weill@afnic.fr</a>
Twitter : @mathieuweill
*****************************
</pre>
</font></span></div>
<br></div></div>_______________________________________________<br>
Ccwg-accountability5 mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Ccwg-accountability5@icann.org" target="_blank">Ccwg-accountability5@icann.org</a><br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-accountability5" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-accountability5</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div></div>
<br>_______________________________________________<br>
Ccwg-accountability5 mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Ccwg-accountability5@icann.org">Ccwg-accountability5@icann.org</a><br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-accountability5" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-accountability5</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div>