<div dir="ltr">Thanks Greg. I agree with your well-stated thoughts and analysis on this, and support the questions to CCWG as you have phrased them.<div><br></div><div>Best,</div><div>Mike</div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br clear="all"><div><div class="gmail_signature" data-smartmail="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><div style="font-family:arial;font-size:small">Mike Rodenbaugh</div><div style="font-family:arial;font-size:small">RODENBAUGH LAW</div><div style="font-family:arial;font-size:small">tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087</div><div style="font-family:arial;font-size:small"><a href="http://rodenbaugh.com" target="_blank">http://rodenbaugh.com</a> </div></div></div></div>
<br><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 12:59 PM, Greg Shatan <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com" target="_blank">gregshatanipc@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">All,</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">Based on our discussions, there were two topics identified as ones to be brought back to the CCWG Plenary, which is meeting tomorrow. </div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">These topics relate (i) examining ICANN's place of incorporation and (ii) the Gap Analysis that we have been tasked to "confirm and assess." I'll deal with the gap analysis issue in a separate email. </div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">This email deals with how (and whether) to approach the effects of ICANN's place of incorporation.</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">Both in this group and in the CCWG generally, we have heard a range of views on how (and whether) to examine the effects of ICANN's place of incorporation (and perhaps, by extension, the location of ICANN's headquarters).</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">On the one hand, there have been calls for a declaration that ICANN will forever be incorporated and located in California, putting issues relating to ICANN's place of incorporation/location out of scope. </div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">On the other hand, there have been calls to have any effects arising from ICANN's place of incorporation/location and all outcomes/recommendations relating to those effects be open to this group. </div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">I don't see sufficient support for either of these positions in the subgroup in their current form, so we need a way forward capable of broad support in this subgroup and the CCWG. Since we have not been able to resolve this matter in our group, this seems like an appropriate topic to bring back to the CCWG Plenary for clarification and guidance.<br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><b>In looking for a way forward, I suggest we seek answers to two questions, based on the two positions above:</b></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><b><br></b></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><b>(a) Should the subgroup (and thus the CCWG) be free to examine the effects of all "layers" of ICANN "jurisdiction," including ICANN's place of incorporation and location?</b> (Based on other aspects of Annex 12, this probably should focus in particular on the effect on "actual operation of policies and accountability mechanisms" and on settlement of disputes, but we don't need to make that scope decision quite yet.)</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><b>(b) Should the subgroup (and thus the CCWG) keep open all options for outcomes/recommendations arising from this examination (including changing ICANN's place of incorporation and/or location)?</b></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><b><br></b></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">We need an outcome that is likely to get broad support in the subgroup and the CCWG and allow us to move forward with our work. At the same time, we need to recognize that not everyone will be pleased, but pleasing everyone is impossible.</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">After reviewing the various points and positions raised in the subgroup and CCWG, I would like to put forward the following answers as a "strawman":</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><div class="gmail_default"><i>(a) The subgroup should be free to examine the effects of ICANN's current place of incorporation/location.<br></i></div><div class="gmail_default"><i>(b) The subgroup should eliminate the possibility that we will recommend to CCWG that ICANN be moved from California, either as a place of incorporation or as a physical location.</i></div></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">I've based this suggestion on an examination of issues raised by various participants during our work, listed below. You should all respond with your thoughts on the appropriate response to these questions, and feel free to provide any additional inputs for consideration. <br></div><div class="gmail_default"><ol><li style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">Our remit is to look at all the "multi-layers" of jurisdiction, not only at selected layers. All jurisdictional issues relate back to rules of law and choices of law, and the influence of California law and location is relevant to all of those discussions. As a result, failure to even look at any aspect of the effects (positive or negative) of ICANN's place of incorporation and location would be seen an incomplete exercise of the remit of this group.</li><li><span style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">A declaration in perpetuity is inappropriate. ICANN, as a private corporation, should be free to consider changes to any aspect of its Bylaws and Articles, according to the methods chosen for its governance. We have revised and reformed these methods, and we should be able to use them in the future for all topics, even this one. </span></li><li><span style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">The CWG-Stewardship and CCWG-Accountability proposals (and their implementation) depend on California as the place of incorporation. For example, ICANN's Bylaws are based in California law and the Bylaw revisions (now accepted by ICANN but waiting to be made effective) are similarly based on California law.</span></li><li><span style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">More particularly, the Empowered Community is based on the "designator" concept in California non-profit law and on the treatment of "unincorporated associations" (particularly, the personhood of unincorporated associations) as set forth in California law. </span></li><li><span style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">It has been suggested that changing ICANN's place of incorporation would disrupt the proposed changes just as they are being put in place and essentially "re-open" Work Stream 1. This would undo a great deal of work, throw the Accountability mechanisms and other changes into uncertainty, and open the door to massive attempts at "re-trading".</span></li><li><span style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">We should allow the new accountability mechanisms an appropriate amount of time to function "as is" before even considering a jurisdictional change that would have across-the-board effects on these mechanisms and other recommended reforms (and require another CCWG, or at least WS3). </span></li><li><span style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">The revised (and current) Articles of Incorporation state that ICANN "is organized [i.e., incorporated] under the California Nonprofit Public Benefit Corporation Law for charitable and public purposes." Changes to the Articles should be approached with the same level of gravity as changes to the Fundamental Bylaws, which are not to be taken lightly. Any change will require the same process as changes to the fundamental Bylaws (i.e., 75% vote of Board and convening Empowered Community and getting EC approval).</span></li><li><span style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">Arriving at a choice of another jurisdiction for these purposes would likely require a multi-year effort to accomplish, which by itself is outside the scope of Work Stream 2, which essentially has a one-year lifespan. We need to consider whether this is a practical outcome.</span></li><li><font face="verdana, sans-serif">Even if we find negative effects </font><span style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">from ICANN's California incorporation or location</span><font face="verdana, sans-serif">, we should start with</font><span style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"> less disruptive and more contained remedial measures</span><span style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">. It would be premature to move past more straightforward options and recommend the drastic outcome of moving ICANN. If more modest options are tried and they fail to resolve a fundamental problem, then it would be appropriate for some future WG (or the EC) to suggest bigger changes.</span></li><li><span style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">Aside from the governance issues, moving ICANN completely out of California (and possibly the US) would require an immense amount of work for the corporation, staffing problems, etc.</span><br></li><li><span style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">Examining and resolving issues such as </span><span style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">venue and providers of dispute resolution mechanisms, language of proceedings, </span><span style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">applicable law(s) for disputes: addressing the laws of jurisdiction where contracting parties are established (including potential conflicts between commitments derived from ICANN policies and such national legal frameworks), and internal redress mechanisms does not require the ability to change ICANN's place of incorporation or location.</span></li></ol></div><div class="gmail_default"><font face="verdana, sans-serif"><br></font></div><div class="gmail_default"><font face="verdana, sans-serif">I look forward to all your thoughts.</font></div><span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><div class="gmail_default"><font face="verdana, sans-serif"><br></font></div><div class="gmail_default"><font face="verdana, sans-serif">Greg</font></div><div class="gmail_default"><font face="verdana, sans-serif"><br></font></div><div class="gmail_default"><br></div></font></span></div>
<br>______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org">Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org</a><br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/<wbr>listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div>