As far as I remember Jurisdiction was moved to the second Work Stream of 
Accountability.

Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez
+506 8837 7176
Skype: carlos.raulg
On 19 May 2015, at 19:48, Norbert Klein wrote:

> I think the question of a neutral jurisdiction is of fundamental
> importance – though I am aware that Jean-Jacques and some others and 
> I
> are in a small minority, seeing this problem.
>
> I think to have arrangements not under a restrictive legal environment
> is important, and I say so not only for any kind of “ideological” 
> reasons.
>
> In the past, in relation to another not-for-profit US based 
> organization
> (ISOC), at a time when I was chair of the ISOC Cambodia Chapter, I was
> unofficially warned not to get involved with an Internet-users group 
> in
> Myanmar using any reference to ISOC, as this would be contrary to US
> restrictions for US based non-profits, to deal with Myanmar (and some
> other countries under restriction). All this was at a time when the
> Myanmar political climate was moving towards more openness.
>
> Norbert Klein
>
> Cambodia
> =
>
> On 04/23/2015 11:14 PM, Subrenat, Jean-Jacques wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> in addition, I would point out another aspect which was mentioned by 
>> members of the community in the early stages of the CCWG and CWG, but 
>> which seems to have faded away: jurisdiction.
>>
>> Whatever legal construct is retained (wholly-owned subsidiary of 
>> ICANN or similar), there remains a fundamental issue: in all the 
>> scenarios currently envisaged, the PTI would be a US entity under 
>> California law, answerable to federal and State laws, and for that 
>> reason would remain under the ultimate supervision of US public 
>> authority (NTIA or another) and the attentive to the will of the US 
>> Congress.
>>
>> I am probably expressing a minority view, and it seems very unlikely 
>> that the current discussion would envisage making PTI a truly global 
>> entity, located in a jurisdiction outside the USA. But an 
>> alternative, no doubt more widely acceptable proposal, would be to 
>> create the two oversight bodies, PRF and CSC, in a non-US 
>> jurisdiction. Such a solution would allow the operational part to 
>> dwell in the US, while providing a truly global oversight under 
>> international law (say in Geneva), rather than only US and California 
>> law.
>>
>> Jean-Jacques Subrenat.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ----- Mail original -----
>> De: "David Post" <[log in to unmask]>
>> À: [log in to unmask]
>> Envoyé: Jeudi 23 Avril 2015 17:27:27
>> Objet: Re: Public Comments on IANA proposal
>>
>> Milton/All
>>
>> I'm sure this was talked about at length during the development of 
>> the proposal, but it does seem rather odd to me that "functional and 
>> legal separation" between the IANA naming functions and ICANN (which 
>> I agree is an important principle) has been implemented in this 
>> proposal by means of setting up a new corporation that is a 
>> wholly-owned subsidiary of ICANN's (with an ICANN-designated Board - 
>> sec III.A.i.b). Can you say a few words as to why you think that 
>> provides for the necessary independence? The PTI Board will be 
>> answerable to the ICANN Board, because ICANN is the only "member" of 
>> PTI - ??
>>
>> David
>>
>>
>> The At 10:58 AM 4/23/2015, Milton L Mueller wrote:
>>
>>
>> Dear NCSG-ers:
>>
>> The domain names part of the IANA transition is finally being formed. 
>> A draft proposal was released yesterday and it is open for public 
>> comment.
>>
>> In my view, this is a big win for accountability. By legally 
>> separating the IANA functions operator from ICANN, it will be easier 
>> to hold ICANN’s board and staff accountable for the policy making 
>> process, and easier to hold the post-transition IANA accountable for 
>> its performance of the IANA functions. Lines of responsibility will 
>> be more direct, and policy more clearly separated from 
>> implementation.
>>
>> The proposal also promotes accountability by creating a periodic 
>> review process that could allow the names community to “fire” the 
>> existing IANA if there was great dissatisfaction with its 
>> performance. This enhances the accountability sought by the numbers 
>> and protocols communities as well as creating separability for the 
>> names community for the first time.
>>
>> The legal affiliate structure seems to have found the middle ground 
>> in the debate over ICANN’s role in the IANA functions. Although 
>> IANA will still be a subsidiary of ICANN, Inc., thus defusing any 
>> concerns about creating new organizations, it will have a separate 
>> board and a clearer line of demarcation between the politics of ICANN 
>> the policy maker and the technical coordination functions provided by 
>> the IANA functions operator.
>>
>> You can read the (very long) proposal here:
>>
>> https ://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-04-22-en
>>
>> You can comment on it here:
>>
>> https://www.icann.org/public-comments/cwg-stewardship-draft-proposal-2015-04-22-en
>>
>>
>>
>> *******************************
>> David G Post - Senior Fellow, Open Technology Institute/New America 
>> Foundation
>> blog (Volokh Conspiracy) 
>> http://www.washingtonpost.com/people/david-post
>> book (Jefferson's Moose) http://tinyurl.com/c327w2n
>> music http://tinyurl.com/davidpostmusic publications etc. 
>> http://www.davidpost.com
>> *******************************