[CCWG-ACCT] Fwd: draft proposal for AoC section 8 - for our next call

[Edward Morris]

HI everyone,

Are we sure we want to restrict ICANN to a Los Angeles headquarters? I'm
not trying to bring up the jurisdiction issue in this post, more of a real
estate issue. If a dozen years from now ICANN needs a new headquarters do
we really want to restrict it to Los Angeles County if real estate prices,
recruitment concerns or other issues would make it a better idea to set up
shop in Orange, Riverside or another county within California? If there is
a legal requirement to state the county in the Bylaws so be it; if not, I'd
suggest that "State of California, United States of America" should suffice.

Ed

-apologies for not thinking of this earlier.

On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 4:38 PM, Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco at netchoice.org>
wrote:

>
> Per Mathieu's request, here is a one page summary of proposed way to deal
> with AoC section 8.  I tried to reflect suggestions from our last call.
>
>  Look forward to discussion.
>
>
>   ​ —​
> Steve DelBianco
>  Executive Director
> NetChoice
> http://www.NetChoice.org <http://www.netchoice.org/> and
> http://blog.netchoice.org
> +1.703.615.6206
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20150425/214fec41/attachment.html>