[PC-NCSG] Guidance Requested

[Tapani Tarvainen]

Yes, as much as I'd like to move the HQ to at least somewhere with
a decent climate like Alaska, for practical purposes I agree it'd
definitely be more than "pretty hard", more like somewhere between
"really, really hard" and "practically impossible" to move away from
California.

On general principles it'd be nice to have at least theoretical
possibility open for moving it, but whether that'd be worth fighting
for, I don't know.

Tapani

On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 01:15:16PM +0000, Matthew Shears (mshears at cdt.org) wrote:

> 
> 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

-- 
Tapani Tarvainen