[Ws2-jurisdiction] Question Presented

[Seun Ojedeji]

Hmmm, I like to suggest care here. Yes the point was raised, whether it was
formerly recognised as an issue and discussed as part of the items for this
group is debatable.

Infact that we are asking a question(ref: Greg's attached doc) in that
regard as it concerns scope affirms that we can't claim it was formerly
discussed and consensus not achieved.

Ofcourse it can be noted that there wasn't agreement to formerly discuss it
which seem to be the case.

Regards
PS: This does not imply a support to change of jurisdiction as I don't see
reason for it.

On 8 Jun 2017 8:52 PM, "icannlists" <icannlists at winston.com> wrote:

> Thanks Paul R.
>
>
>
> Greg, I agree with this – mostly.  I do think it is worth noting in our
> final report that the issue of moving ICANN’s formation jurisdiction
> outside of California was discussed at great length by this group and there
> was no consensus to do so.  Otherwise, our report would look like we just
> assumed that California formation would remain but did not discuss it.
> That would not be accurate.
>
>
>
> Best,
>
> Paul M.
>
>
>
>
>
> *Paul D. McGrady Jr.*
>
> *Partner *
>
> *Chair, Trademark, Domain Names and Brand Enforcement Practice *
>
> Winston & Strawn LLP
> 35 W. Wacker Drive
> Chicago, IL 60601-9703
>
> D: +1 (312) 558-5963 <+1%20312-558-5963>
>
> F: +1 (312) 558-5700 <+1%20312-558-5700>
>
> Bio <http://www.winston.com/en/who-we-are/attorneys/mcgrady-paul-d.html>
>  | VCard <http://www.winston.com/vcards/996.vcf> | Email
> <pmcgrady at winston.com> | winston.com <http://www.winston.com>
>
> [image: Winston & Strawn LLP]
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* ws2-jurisdiction-bounces at icann.org [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-
> bounces at icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Paul Rosenzweig
> *Sent:* Thursday, June 08, 2017 2:13 PM
> *To:* 'Greg Shatan' <gregshatanipc at gmail.com>; 'ws2-jurisdiction' <
> ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org>
> *Cc:* acct-staff at icann.org
> *Subject:* Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Question Presented
>
>
>
> Hi Greg
>
>
>
> Per our discussion on the call today, I would suggest a slight amendment
> to this strawman proposal.  My take is that, as Avri suggested, the
> Subgroup should continue its work on the basis of an assumption that the
> jurisdiction of incorporation will remain unchanged and that our report to
> the Plenary will state that as an assumption (rather than, as David has
> suggested (and I would support) as a conclusion or recommendation).  This
> will enable us to work forward on real issues of accountability effects
> arising from incorporation and move past the endless recircling we are
> doing.
>
>
>
> The practical consequences of this choice would be to confine our
> discussion in two ways.  When a potential issue that effects accountability
> is raised (e.g. OFAC or in rem) it would not be a response to say “well, we
> are stuck with that because we are in California” but it would also no
> longer be a suitable response to say “we can eliminate that problem by
> moving to XXX”  Our work would, as I understand it, focus on the question
> of “can that problem be mitigated by the application of other aspects of
> California/US/contractual law” (that is law that assumes that incorporation
> is unchanged but, for example, admits of the possibility that ICANN might
> be able to contract around some problems).  I would support this approach,
> as did a majority of those on the call (maybe even everyone).
>
>
>
> Thus I would reformulate your submission to the Plenary as a report of
> what we have determined as the way forward – namely to assume that the
> place of incorporation will not change, but to make explicit the premise
> that our assumption is without prejudice to the issue being raised in some
> other broader forum.
>
>
>
> Cheers
>
> Paul
>
>
>
> Paul Rosenzweig
>
> paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com
>
> O: +1 (202) 547-0660 <+1%20202-547-0660>
>
> M: +1 (202) 329-9650 <+1%20202-329-9650>
>
> VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 <+1%20202-738-1739>
>
> www.redbranchconsulting.com
>
> My PGP Key: https://keys.mailvelope.com/pks/lookup?op=get&search=
> 0x9A830097CA066684
>
>
>
> *From:* ws2-jurisdiction-bounces at icann.org [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-
> bounces at icann.org <ws2-jurisdiction-bounces at icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Greg
> Shatan
> *Sent:* Thursday, June 8, 2017 9:29 AM
> *To:* ws2-jurisdiction <ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org>
> *Cc:* acct-staff at icann.org
> *Subject:* [Ws2-jurisdiction] Question Presented
>
>
>
> Please see attached.
>
> ------------------------------
> The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. If this
> message has been received in error, please delete it without reading it.
> Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable
> privilege. Please do not disseminate this message without the permission of
> the author. Any tax advice contained in this email was not intended to be
> used, and cannot be used, by you (or any other taxpayer) to avoid penalties
> under applicable tax laws and regulations.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list
> Ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ws2-jurisdiction/attachments/20170609/ede2fdfc/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 2044 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ws2-jurisdiction/attachments/20170609/ede2fdfc/image001-0001.jpg>