[CWG-RFP3] Is there is a more suitable legal jurisdiction for an IANA subsidiary?

[Carolina Aguerre]

Hi Jordan, All,
While I tend to agree that it would not be a good idea to separate the 
jurisdictions of ICANN and IANA, I would like to have evidence-based 
arguments in favour of a California -based jurisdiction. I am not a 
lawyer, nor an expert in international legislation, but I would like to 
know:
a) What are the specific safeguards that California provides with 
respect to other States in the US for an international non-profit such 
as ICANN?
b) Are there specific benefits in having an international non-profit 
organization based under a regime within a Federal system - with its own 
state judiciaries, rather than a united national jurisdiction?

I think that it is precisely by pointing at evidence and facts that the 
whole issue around the ICANN - IANA jurisdiction might become less 
politicized.
Thanks.
Best regards,
Carolina

On 04/11/2014 06:15 a.m., Jordan Carter wrote:
> All:
>
> My view *at this stage* is that there are clear advantages to 
> California jurisdiction that other less transparent regimes would find 
> hard to match. If there was to be an IANA subsidiary company wholly 
> owned by ICANN (a viable option), then it would make sense for it to 
> be in the same jurisdiction.
>
> I don't want to see ICANN or IANA pretending to become IGOs and 
> retreating to the secrecy of Swiss law or anything like that, personally.
>
> That said, I am aware of many criticisms of how ICANN has used the 
> "California law" card as a way to get out of things. The truth of 
> those is beyond my experience, but I wonder how often the courts of 
> California have decided those issues, rather than assertions by ICANN 
> legal?  My suspicion is the courts haven't played much of a role - or 
> in other words, that it may not be the California jurisdiction that's 
> the problem so much as how it is being interpreted...
>
> best,
> Jordan
>
> On 4 November 2014 05:33, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com 
> <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>     All:
>
>     Here is Robert's second question (which I think also applies to
>     the concept of a fully independent IANA):
>
>     *For  option #2.
>
>     - Is there is a  jurisdiction that ICANN has (or can obtain) legal
>     status might be more suitable to use to create IANA as a
>     subsidiary. Such an option might allow for the link to be a
>     subsidiary of ICANN, but sever the legal link to the US. A
>     negative, of course, would be moving the function and existing
>     staff to a new part of the world.*
>
>     Comments and discussion?
>
>     Greg
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     Cwg-rfp3 mailing list
>     Cwg-rfp3 at icann.org <mailto:Cwg-rfp3 at icann.org>
>     https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-rfp3
>
>
>
>
> -- 
> Jordan Carter
>
> Chief Executive
> *InternetNZ*
>
> 04 495 2118 (office) | +64 21 442 649 (mob)
> jordan at internetnz.net.nz <mailto:jordan at internetnz.net.nz>
> Skype: jordancarter
>
> /To promote the Internet's benefits and uses, and protect its potential./
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Cwg-rfp3 mailing list
> Cwg-rfp3 at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-rfp3


-- 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-rfp3/attachments/20141104/8c4ba9eb/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Sign_CarolinaAguerre.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 12816 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-rfp3/attachments/20141104/8c4ba9eb/Sign_CarolinaAguerre.jpg>