[Ws2-jurisdiction] Question Presented

[Paul Rosenzweig]

If we are all dreaming of pleasant venues, might not France with an office
located in the Tahiti Department be the best choice?

P

Paul Rosenzweig
paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com
O: +1 (202) 547-0660
M: +1 (202) 329-9650
VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739
www.redbranchconsulting.com
My PGP Key:
https://keys.mailvelope.com/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x9A830097CA066684

-----Original Message-----
From: ws2-jurisdiction-bounces at icann.org
[mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Nigel Roberts
Sent: Monday, June 19, 2017 12:19 PM
To: ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org
Subject: Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Question Presented

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