Hi, Yep, that is true. I think we all know that at this point no other solution is possible for ICANN. One of the battles we are having in CCWG Accountabilty is whether we put a statement in the Bylaw, based on the AOC that is being imported into the ByLAw that guarantees that ICANN will remain in the US. I think that discussion will be occurring next week. there is every intention that it will conitnue to have departments in office outside the US. And there have been discussions on negotiating contracts in those countries. Though the CWG-IANA has not gone to this level of detail. On the affiliate, in CWG IANA, I am assuming it would originate, and remain, in the US, but I do not think a decision has been taken. Then again we are still in the process of making the decision on whether we will be going with the affiliate configuration. I do not think there have been any concrete proposals on it being elsewhere, though a few people have mentioned wistfully that maybe we could think about that. Most of all the proposals that we have discussed have originate in a boom-up manner, e.g the whole affiliate model had its origins in proposal proffered by a group of community participants. there are other examples as well. One of the issues on the table, in CCWG Accountabilty, is how to make sure that everyone has access to appropriaite venues fo the legal issue. This means establishing a means for sovereign states, igo, ingos, businesses and individuals to be able to bring their cases to a set of international and non US tribunals. This discussion has not occured yet in any depth but has been submitted to the lawyers, I believe. I think it will be part of Work Stream 2. Unless of course there is a groundswell of comment on the soon to be draft about it not having been covered. Then who knows. The oversight mechanisms however, are almost all modeled on multistakeholder diversity. The work being done in CCWG - Accountabity is key for insuring that an aggregated multistakeholder voice is the deciding voice at ICANN. This is a task the group has taken quite seriously. avri On 17-Apr-15 21:55, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > Isn't the proposed Post-Transition IANA oversight structure going to be > either a "wholly-owned subsidiary" of ICANN based in the USA or an > independent USA non-profit based in the USA and fully under US laws? > > frt rgds > > --c.a. > > On 04/17/2015 08:23 AM, Avri Doria wrote: >> >> On 16-Apr-15 16:31, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: >>> Robin, this is a question for the CWG as well, as they have been >>> proposing all-American admin+oversight scenarios. >> please explain. >> >> thanks >> >> avri >> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> Avast logo <http://www.avast.com/> >> >> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. >> www.avast.com <http://www.avast.com/> >> >> > --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. http://www.avast.com