RE: [ga] serious participation in ICANN processes

[Roeland Meyer <rmeyer@mhsc.com>]

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