<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<p>Hi Greg - thanks for this. Much appreciated.</p>
<p>Some quick comments inline. <br>
</p>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 19/09/2016 15:59, Greg Shatan wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CA+aOHUTuPhQYYMtUvGtAeB1hDibWgFOkaEA=M-8c3tJAp-o8GQ@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<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 </div>
</div>
</blockquote>
I think this needs to be further discussed, and if agreed, there
need to be very clear parameters on what is and is not in scope<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CA+aOHUTuPhQYYMtUvGtAeB1hDibWgFOkaEA=M-8c3tJAp-o8GQ@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">(and perhaps, by
extension, the location of ICANN's headquarters).</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
Don't agree that we should be discussing this issue - as you note
below WS1 has discussed this and agreed 2 things: 1) that ICANN will
continue to be HQed in CA; and 2) that it would be possible, through
the new bylaws, for that to change (at least that is my
understanding). If and when this becomes an issue it should be
discussed then.<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CA+aOHUTuPhQYYMtUvGtAeB1hDibWgFOkaEA=M-8c3tJAp-o8GQ@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<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. <br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
I think these are two "approaches" are not in scope given the above.<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CA+aOHUTuPhQYYMtUvGtAeB1hDibWgFOkaEA=M-8c3tJAp-o8GQ@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<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>
</blockquote>
For so long as it is clearly parametered and not a laundry list<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CA+aOHUTuPhQYYMtUvGtAeB1hDibWgFOkaEA=M-8c3tJAp-o8GQ@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<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>
</blockquote>
Disagree with the notion of "all" - it needs to be limited - and
disagree with parentheses as noted above.<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CA+aOHUTuPhQYYMtUvGtAeB1hDibWgFOkaEA=M-8c3tJAp-o8GQ@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<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>
</blockquote>
Agree with above, subject to (a) being focussed on a limited set of
"effects"<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CA+aOHUTuPhQYYMtUvGtAeB1hDibWgFOkaEA=M-8c3tJAp-o8GQ@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<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>
</ol>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
Agree, but for so long as surgically focused as noted above<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CA+aOHUTuPhQYYMtUvGtAeB1hDibWgFOkaEA=M-8c3tJAp-o8GQ@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_default">
<ol>
<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>
</ol>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
Agree<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CA+aOHUTuPhQYYMtUvGtAeB1hDibWgFOkaEA=M-8c3tJAp-o8GQ@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_default">
<ol>
<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>
</ol>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
Agree with all of the above.<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CA+aOHUTuPhQYYMtUvGtAeB1hDibWgFOkaEA=M-8c3tJAp-o8GQ@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_default">
<ol>
<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>
</ol>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
It is not and should not be part of our work as noted above.<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CA+aOHUTuPhQYYMtUvGtAeB1hDibWgFOkaEA=M-8c3tJAp-o8GQ@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_default">
<ol>
<li><font face="verdana, sans-serif">Even if we find
negative effects </font></li>
</ol>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
we have to be clear what we mean by "negative" and for whom<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CA+aOHUTuPhQYYMtUvGtAeB1hDibWgFOkaEA=M-8c3tJAp-o8GQ@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_default">
<ol>
<li><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">.</span></li>
</ol>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
These will need to be very carefully assessed, if we even propose
such measures (which I don't think we have agreed to do yet)<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CA+aOHUTuPhQYYMtUvGtAeB1hDibWgFOkaEA=M-8c3tJAp-o8GQ@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_default">
<ol>
<li><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>
</ol>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
Not in scope <br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CA+aOHUTuPhQYYMtUvGtAeB1hDibWgFOkaEA=M-8c3tJAp-o8GQ@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_default">
<ol>
<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>
</ol>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
Not in scope.<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CA+aOHUTuPhQYYMtUvGtAeB1hDibWgFOkaEA=M-8c3tJAp-o8GQ@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_default">
<ol>
<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>
</blockquote>
Agree, for so long as we have a very clear and agreed limited set of
issues that we address.<br>
<br>
Thanks Greg!<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CA+aOHUTuPhQYYMtUvGtAeB1hDibWgFOkaEA=M-8c3tJAp-o8GQ@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<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>
<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>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org">Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
--------------
Matthew Shears
Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)
+ 44 771 2472987</pre>
</body>
</html>