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

[Jordan Carter]

Hi Carolina,

I think this is a great question - and I would warmly encourage any
qualified lawyers to offer some views about both those questions and the
broader matters of California law for non-profits.

Is anyone on this list able to contribute analysis of this sort? I am not a
lawyer and so can't do so.

best
Jordan


On 5 November 2014 02:53, Carolina Aguerre <carolina at lactld.org> wrote:

>  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> 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
>> 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
> Skype: jordancarter
>
> *To promote the Internet's benefits and uses, and protect its potential.*
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Cwg-rfp3 mailing listCwg-rfp3 at icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-rfp3
>
>
>
> --
>
> _______________________________________________
> Cwg-rfp3 mailing list
> 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
Skype: jordancarter

*To promote the Internet's benefits and uses, and protect its potential.*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-rfp3/attachments/20141105/0711d6f5/attachment-0001.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/20141105/0711d6f5/Sign_CarolinaAguerre-0001.jpg>