George, If you're talking about when the LLC was incorporated, yes, there was that discussion. But in reality it was 20 years too late; with ISOC and ICANN and for that matter the IETF Trust being constituted under US jurisdictions, and any of their (or the unincorporated IETF's) legitimacy being based on something like 35 years of history under US jurisdiction, it would have been hard to *meaningfully* put the LLC under Swiss law, or EU law for that matter. It's sad, IMHO, but that's reality. The alternatives all tend to lead to the same address: Place des Nations, CH-1211 Geneva 20. Regards Brian On 01-Jul-22 16:45, George Michaelson wrote:
Before the time of incorporation, there was serious consideration of Geneva (for example) as a place to be seen to do business. This came up again in the ICANN formation days, and in part also goes to the equally irrelevant decision to site both HSM for ICANN in the US, "east and west coast for diversity" instead of locating one in any other economy. People from non-US jurisdictions often look at decisions taken to material benefit of the US community and ask "when was this going to be discussed" and the answer usually is "its not effective or efficient to put this out to consensus, especially in politically charged times" It would have been politically, not to say logistically difficult to take a function which existed under US governmental processes predating the Internet, and a relationship with a body like CNRI, and just glibly say "oh, we're moving the legal formula to Switzerland, bye" But the conversations on the list at that time and before that time, did consider this kind of issue, as have many fine conversations at networking meetings worldwide. Charter bodies in the wide don't just automatically wind up using Reston VA as their headquarters. "This not the warsaw convention ticket" is actually talking about what now properly resides in Montreal: If you want to complain about your flight ticket, go to Canada. I know the world is not puppies and rainbows. I have no doubt you do to, since Fastmail is incorperated in Australia and bound into five-eyes issues around access to data and privacy of communications in the face of law. But, the reality intrudes, and you do the best you can do, and the IETF does the best it can do. What I said in the formal input path to the warrant question, I said directly: We should have a report on when they're applied, and a warrant canary. Arguably even a canary is puppies and rainbows because you can be obligated not to fail to update the canary, if the legals are done right. cheers -george
