[Ws2-jurisdiction] Items for CCWG-Plenary: (1) Place of Incorporation
matthew shears
mshears at cdt.org
Tue Sep 20 14:11:40 UTC 2016
Hi Greg - thanks for this. Much appreciated.
Some quick comments inline.
On 19/09/2016 15:59, Greg Shatan wrote:
> All,
>
> Based on our discussions, there were two topics identified as ones to
> be brought back to the CCWG Plenary, which is meeting tomorrow.
>
> 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.
>
> This email deals with how (and whether) to approach the effects of
> ICANN's place of incorporation.
>
> 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
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
> (and perhaps, by extension, the location of ICANN's headquarters).
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.
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
I think these are two "approaches" are not in scope given the above.
>
> 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.
>
> *In looking for a way forward, I suggest we seek answers to two
> questions, based on the two positions above:*
> *
> *
> *(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?* (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.)
For so long as it is clearly parametered and not a laundry list
>
> *(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)?*
Disagree with the notion of "all" - it needs to be limited - and
disagree with parentheses as noted above.
> *
> *
> 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.
>
> 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":
>
> /(a) The subgroup should be free to examine the effects of ICANN's
> current place of incorporation/location.
> /
> /(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./
>
Agree with above, subject to (a) being focussed on a limited set of
"effects"
> 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.
>
> 1. 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.
>
Agree, but for so long as surgically focused as noted above
>
> 1. 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.
>
Agree
>
> 1. 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.
> 2. 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.
> 3. 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".
> 4. 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).
> 5. 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).
>
Agree with all of the above.
>
> 1. 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.
>
It is not and should not be part of our work as noted above.
>
> 1. Even if we find negative effects
>
we have to be clear what we mean by "negative" and for whom
>
> 1. from ICANN's California incorporation or location, we should start
> with less disruptive and more contained remedial measures.
>
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)
>
> 1. 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.
>
Not in scope
>
> 1. 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.
>
Not in scope.
>
> 1. Examining and resolving issues such as venue and providers of
> dispute resolution mechanisms, language of proceedings, 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.
>
Agree, for so long as we have a very clear and agreed limited set of
issues that we address.
Thanks Greg!
>
> I look forward to all your thoughts.
>
> Greg
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list
> Ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
--
--------------
Matthew Shears
Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)
+ 44 771 2472987
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ws2-jurisdiction/attachments/20160920/3f514374/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Ws2-jurisdiction
mailing list