Amadeu wrote:
> A) Incorporation?
>
> I personnally think is an added, unnecessary complication leading to
> added,
> unnecessary bereaucracy . But it reads like ICANN *wants* the SO to be
> separately incorporated, and what we want is a wroking DNSO, not a perfect
> design that never will fly.
>
Makes sense to me.
> B) Where?
>
> It depends, indeed.
>
Have you ever thought of becoming a lawyer? You will make a good one!
<hope you don't mind the snip>
> The question is: do e believe that, in the name of "geogra`hical legal
> diversity", at least one of the SOs should be incorporated outsde the US?.
> Uf
> yes, then Switzerland is the best choice, with lots of otheres running not
> that far behind, and many other better avoided.
>
> If noone cares about incorparating outside the US one of the four new
> corps,
> and prefers keeping complete legal uniformity and coherence, then the most
> obvious choice is California, where ICANN has already been incorporated.
>
There's also one other reason that may lead us to choose Switzerland (or
anyway to be outside the US).
The main reason why we incorporate, if I understand it correctly, is in
order to make a more efficient defense to lawsuits. For instance, not to
automatically involve ICANN (or the other SOs) in a lawsuit against the
DNSO.
This purpose is better served, IMHO, if the two entities are under separate
jurisdictions, simply because you need two separate lawsuits.
> But we all really have much more serious questions on the talbe.
>
Maybe.
But this question is not trivial.
If we need to incorporate, we need to prepare a set of Bylaws (Bret, you
were right!).
These Bylaws will depend to a certain extent from the country we choose: I
assume that Swiss Bylaws are different from US Bylaws.
This is a point that I would like to discuss in sufficient depth before the
wrap-up ;>) meeting.
Regards
Roberto