RE: [ga] serious participation in ICANN processes

["Roberto Gaetano" <ga_chair@hotmail.com>]

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