[Ws2-jurisdiction] Question Presented

[Greg Shatan]

Nigel,

I have no idea what the perceived gain of incorporating in the UK would be,
and of course, the community's proposal to have ICANN as a membership
organization (CWG Second Draft) did not carry the day, so we ended up with
what we have.  But let's not analyze it, unless it's over a beer.

In any case, we should be discussing issues and recommendations, rather
than alternate jurisdictions....

Greg

On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 12:20 PM Nigel Roberts <nigel at channelisles.net>
wrote:

> I think you are wrong.
>
> It's totally clear to me that moving ICANN's place of incorporation to
> England, and reincorporating as a company limited by guarantee, having
> Members (who can be legal as well as natural persons) would be a far
> superior model. Let me think of an example . .. ah yes, Nominet UK!
>
> However, is the actually perceived gain worth the effort? Well, I rather
> doubt it.  And there'd be opposition.
>
> So why not make the best of what we have??
>
> And if the gedankenexperiment of moving to London doesn't work, then
> it's not going to work for Istanbul, Cairo, Singapore or even Brussels
> or Zurich. (Much as I'd like the excuse to visit Singapore regularly.)
>
>
>
> On 19/06/17 15:40, Mueller, Milton L wrote:
> > Please pardon my late intervention. We were presented with this question:
> >
> >
> >
> > *Question: Is considering or recommending changes to ICANN's status as a
> > not-for-profit California corporation within the scope of the Subgroup?*
> >
> >
> >
> > Two things seem obvious to me:
> >
> > 1.       The issue IS within the intended scope of the subgroup, and
> >
> > 2.       There is overwhelming consensus AGAINST recommending changes to
> > ICANN’s status as a nonprofit California public benefit corporation.
> >
> >
> >
> > It seems to me that most of the debate is confusing issue #1 with issue
> > #2. The entire discussion has not developed any real alternative, much
> > less a clearly superior one, to California jurisdiction. The identified
> > problems with US jurisdiction (mainly OFAC) can be addressed without
> > moving ICANN’s place of incorporation. So let’s stop trying to
> > dishonestly pre-empt resolution of the jurisdiction issue by ruling
> > certain discussions “out of scope.”  Let’s resolve it honestly by
> > developing and acknowledging consensus around the fact that other than
> > the meaningless mirage of “international jurisdiction” there is no
> > better framework within which to work than California law.
> >
> >
> >
> > The debate about scope, in other words, is a diversion from the
> > substantive issue, and I wish the chairs and the Americans in the
> > subgroup would stop trying to pre-empt substantive debate with scope
> > debate.
> >
> >
> >
> > I will not be in Johannesburg so I hope people who agree with me can
> > take this perspective into the f2f meeting.
> >
> >
> >
> > Dr. Milton L. Mueller
> >
> > Professor, School of Public Policy
> >
> > Georgia Institute of Technology
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > *From:*ws2-jurisdiction-bounces at icann.org
> > [mailto: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.
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list
> > Ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org
> > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
> >
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20170619/9561c4db/attachment-0001.html>