[Ws2-jurisdiction] More on gap analysis

[Mueller, Milton L]

I think Pedro makes important points. In particular, I see a compatibility between his conclusion:


*         I understand that with the variety of information we have at our disposal (CCWG WS1 report, CCWG mailing archive, law firm memos, etc) some colleagues are tempted to jump into conclusions about the ability of California non-profit law to conform to the CCWG requirements. However, given that this is not a straightforward exercise and stakeholders from distinct geographies and stakeholder groups have diverse viewpoints about it, it is important that a formal and impartial effort  is made so it can be considered legitimate. An informal gap analysis solely based on individual assessments is not likely to be  recognized as a relevant input to the community.



...and the conclusion of Steve De Bianco that



*         "This WS2 team should look at that gap analysis and confirm the conclusion.  If there are enforceability gaps noted by our lawyers, we should analyze whether those gaps could be closed using ANY form of incorporation in ANY jurisdiction."



In other words, even though WS 1 suggests that there are no major or glaring gaps, this WS 2 needs to review and confirm (or find holes in) that initial (hasty) gap analysis. I think that is a procedure we can all agree on. Although for efficiency's sake I would not want to evaluate "any/every" jurisdiction but only those put forward by informed people as possible alternatives.



--MM
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ws2-jurisdiction/attachments/20160926/8843906b/attachment.html>