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) >