IMO, yes ICANN need to take its distance from US jurisdiction. But an 
inter-national jurisdiction is not a good idea.

ICANN's legitimacy hinge on users (writ large, commercial and non, 
contracted and non) and it should definitely stress its non 
inter-national foundations, as well as its non-international plans for 
the future, early and often.

Asking the inter-national question just embarrass ICANN as an org, and 
it doesn't help it strengthen its *global* foundation.

May be I would ask if there are plans to address the perception that US 
has final jurisdiction (implying it does not) in order to populate the 
"authority/foundation by announcement" space in a manner that is most 
conducive to ICANN's perrenity (as beholden to all its 
stakeholders/communities)?

Nicolas

On 2/22/2012 4:39 PM, Kerry Brown wrote:
>
> One question I'd like to see is: "Are there any plans to make ICANN 
> more of an international organisation that is not beholden to or 
> restricted by the laws of any one country?" Your proposed topic 
> possibly hints at this. Why not just come out and ask it so it is on 
> the table for discussion. I don't really expect we'd get a serious or 
> full answer but it would get the subject out there. If ICANN doesn't 
> start planning to make a move toward being a truly international 
> organisation it will happen in an unplanned, possibly very destructive 
> way whether we like it or not. It's something we all need to start 
> talking about.
>
> Kerry Brown
>
> *From:*NCSG-Discuss [mailto:[log in to unmask]] *On Behalf 
> Of *Robin Gross
> *Sent:* February-22-12 1:07 PM
> *To:* [log in to unmask]
> *Subject:* [NCSG-Discuss] Fwd: Confirming Meeting with the Board - 
> Tuesday 13 March - 3:30pm
>
> NCSG has the opportunity to meet with the ICANN Board of Directors in 
> Costa Rica.   We need to identify the 3 topics / questions that we are 
> most interested in discussing with the Board during our hour with them.
>
> One possible topic I'd like to suggest is ICANN's importance in 
> defending the multi-stakeholder model of governance.  We've seen a lot 
> of pressure from governments recently to exert more control on the 
> Internet and on ICANN policymaking activities.  It might be good to 
> reiterate to the board that we support multi-stakeholderism in which 
> civil society is an equal participant to business and government in 
> policymaking and that ICANN can lead to defend this private-sector led 
> governance model.
>
> What do others think?  We should come up a top 3 list to propose to 
> the board by 2 March.
>
> Thank you,
>
> Robin
>
> Begin forwarded message:
>
>
>
> *From: *Diane Schroeder <[log in to unmask] 
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
>
> *Date: *February 22, 2012 12:27:58 PM PST
>
> *To: *Robin Gross <[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
>
> *Cc: *Glen de Saint Géry <[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>>, 
> David Olive <[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
>
> *Subject: Confirming Meeting with the Board - Tuesday 13 March - 3:30pm*
>
> Dear Robin  -  this will confirm that the Board will be meeting with 
> the Noncommercial Stakeholder Group on Tuesday 13 March from 3:30pm to 
> 4:30pm.  The arrangements will be similar to those in Dakar -- there 
> will be a head table and class room style with additional chair 
> seating.  Interpretation and scribing will be provided for the meeting.
>
> It would be helpful if the Stakeholder Group could identify the three 
> topics/questions that they are most interested in discussing with the 
> Board and sending those to me by Friday 2 March.  I will endeavor to 
> the same on behalf of the Board.
>
> Please let me know if you have any questions.
>
> Regards,
>
> Diane Schroeder
>
> Director of Board Support
>
> ICANN
>
> 4676 Admiralty Way,  Ste. 330
>
> Marina del Rey, CA 90292
>
> +1-310-823-9358 (main)
>
> +1-310-301-5827 (direct)
>
> +1-310-823-8649 (fax)
>
> +1-562-644-2524 (mobile)
>