[PC-NCSG] Guidance Requested

[Matthew Shears]

Yes to keeping the corporate and business ICANN with its contractual 
relationships in California.  Whether the locus of the 
policy-making/IANA functions need to stay in California is less 
clear...  No one has yet come up with a credible option to having ICANN 
anywhere else so I don't see a near term alternative.  It should be very 
hard/but not impossible to change this (it has many implications).

On 15/01/2016 13:03, Edward Morris wrote:
> Chair Amr, all,
> I need some guidance from the PC on the following issue so I can 
> properly represent our views on Council and on the Council CCWG sub-team:
> Do we support requiring ICANN to keep its headquarters in California?
> If so, should it be almost impossible to change this requirement or 
> just pretty hard?
> Thanks for weighing in. I can argue both sides and really am 
> ambivalent. It would be helpful to me to know what those on the PC think.
> Thanks for considering,
> Ed
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg

-- 

Matthew Shears
Director - Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
Center for Democracy & Technology
mshears at cdt.org
+ 44 771 247 2987



---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20160115/9279fc86/attachment.html>