RE: [ga] serious participation in ICANN processes

[k@widgital.com (Kristy McKee)]

You mention in this post that "ICANN is *not*, by any possible measure, 
balancing the international point of view.  This has not prevented it from 
doing some good things, "

Please list the "good things" ICANN has done so all of us are made aware of 
their good behavior.  I think it's important to note because ICANN appears 
to not be interested in the good of the public; but only their direct 
sponsors and if they are infact doing good things I for one would like to 
know about it.

:)

~k



At 12:08 AM 4/6/2001 +0200, Roberto Gaetano wrote:
>Roeland,
>>
>>The problem is a basic one, the company has to be incorporated somewhere.
>
>I already said that I am not complaining, I knew that the rule of the game 
>was that US had to remain in control of the system.
>I just point this out as a seldom remembered constraint.
>But this is far from being the "only theoretical solution", is just the 
>only solution that satisfies the requirement of who has the power to lay 
>out the rules of the game.
>But please don't pretend that this is the "only" possibility.
>
>On the matter:
>Why, pray tell, should it be "incorporated" somewhere?
>Why should it be a "corporation" at all?
>Hint: Air Traffic Control is very similar to Network Traffic Control. 
>Where is ICAO incorporated? Is it incorporated at all?
>
>
>>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.
>
>No.
>You are listing only alternatives suitable to the US.
>I agree that US had the power to impose the rule of the game to the rest 
>of the world, but these were not, by any means, *the only alternative(s)* 
>in absolute, but just the only alternatives within the subset of all the 
>possible alternatives that USG liked.
>
>
>>
>>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).
>
>Nobody ever spoke about "off-shore incorporation". The theoretical point 
>is not "which country" but "national or international".
>As you rightfully say, USG has control of the root, and therefore the 
>Internet. Period.
>As I said, I knew it, and I accept that the stronger sets the rules.
>
>
>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).
>
>
>Given the above, you have all the elements to realize why I always said 
>that I could not care less about Delaware vs. Nevada vs. California, 
>for-profit corporation vs. not-for-profit corporation, California laws 
>about membership, and all the alike.
>I judge by the effect: and the effect is before us.
>ICANN is *not*, by any possible measure, balancing the international point 
>of view.
>This has not prevented it from doing some good things, but this should 
>explain why I disagree with you and others on the priorities for a 
>corrective action on ICANN.
>
>Going back where we started a couple of days ago: the whole legal issue 
>about membership under California law is of no interest whatsoever to me.
>I prefer to seek the answer to the question on how an individual that 
>accesses the Internet from a cybercafe in Hyderabad, or Iquique, or 
>Tombuctou, or Vladivostok, can influence this process.
>Hint: if you had to pay the way they do for a 9600 baud connection, would 
>you rather spend hours on these mailing lists, or rely on somebody 
>representing your interests? The issue of membership is important in 
>developed countries, but there is more than that that needs to be 
>adressed. And the US-centric approach does not make me confident that 
>these issues will be ever adressed.
>
>Regards
>Roberto
>
>>
>>
>>
>> > 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
>
>_________________________________________________________________________
>Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.
>
>--
>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-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