Re: [ga] serious participation in ICANN processes

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

Roeland and all remaining assembly members,

  You are probably right here.  But such a suit if filed could not be ignored
either.

  In addition as you should know, a filing properly crafted could be levied
against both the state of California and ICANN in not following the APA
requirements.  Once in court the nasty details would come to the fore front.
That would not be very appealing, to say the least to the ICANN BoD,
Staff and especially ICANN's legal council I wouldn't think.

  Given Sen Burns's Letter to DOC/NTIA, and cosigned by Sen's,
McCain and Dingle, it would seem that this approach is at least being
looked at presently.

  This may also put the current or recent ICANN BoD decision on the
Versisgn/NSI contract in a pacarious position in that DOC will have
to review that decision in light of the fact that their vote did NOT reflect
the consensus of the DNSO GA, and did not even include the
ICANN @large membership.  It would seem than that it is possible
if not likely that Secretary Evans will wish to have a public comment
period on this contract decision, and all of us will yet again need to
weigh in in accordance with APA procedure.  Depending on the
outcome of such a possible public comment period initiated by
DOC, the ICANN BoD may find itself yet again in a pacarious
position with their decision, and their current contract with DOC/NTIA.

Roeland Meyer wrote:

> Sorry about the PS;
>
> I failed to point out that the chief prosecutor of California is the only
> one that can bring ICANN to task. With the current energy crunch, it is
> unlikely that it will get much air-play. They all have larger fish to fry.
> Politically, it is a lower priority.
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Roeland Meyer [mailto:rmeyer@mhsc.com]
> > Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2001 1:15 PM
> > To: 'Roberto Gaetano'; jandl@jandl.com; ga@dnso.org; jefsey@wanadoo.fr
> > Subject: RE: [ga] serious participation in ICANN processes
> >
> >
> > Hello Roberto and Jefsey,
> >
> > The problem is a basic one, the company has to be
> > incorporated somewhere.
> > Would you rather the ICANN be a USG operated regulator, like
> > the FCC? In
> > that instance, no one whom is not a US citizen would have any
> > voice ...
> > period. That was the only alternative.
> >
> > What is an unrealistic expectation is, that the USG would
> > allow off-shore
> > incorporation of someone making recommendation for
> > operations, of the root,
> > that is ultimately controlled by the DOC (a USG agency). Given that;
> > on-shore (US perspective) incorporation is a requirement. The
> > only variable
> > allowed was the home State of incorporation. That the interim
> > ICANN BoD
> > chose California, is an issue to actually [under present
> > circumstances] be
> > thankful for. Many of us recommended Delaware or Nevada
> > jurisdictions, with
> > good reasons, at that time (yes, we were nievely considering
> > good faith
> > intentions). We also argued for for-profit status (another
> > thankful miss).
> >
> >
> >
> > > From: Roberto Gaetano [mailto:ga_chair@hotmail.com]
> > > Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2001 12:35 PM
> > >
> > > Leah,
> > >
> > > >
> > > >I can understand your frustration with all the discussions about
> > > >California Law and the APA.  However, since ICANN is, in fact, a US
> > > >corporation that has its incorporation in California, it
> > is extremely
> > > >relevant.
> > >
> > > It is relevant indeed, and it is exactly the point Jefsey was
> > > making in
> > > wondering how credible can be a Corporation that is only subject to
> > > California law (and I would assume also US Federal law) in
> > > making policy
> > > decision worldwide.
> > >
> > > I am not complaining, we knew in advance that this was the
> > > case: I am just
> > > trying to explain Jefsey's frustration, as I interpret it.
> > --
> > This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
> > Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> > ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> > Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> >
> --
> This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
> Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 118k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Contact Number:  972-447-1800 x1894 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208


--
This message was passed to you via the ga-full@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html