[ga] Roberto: what is the iCANN

[Jefsey Morfin <jefsey@wanadoo.fr>]

Dear Roberto,
and if the iCANN was exactly what it is: a non profit, no member technical 
support venture (corporation) taking over from the disengaging market 
leader. Questions are simple: what is transfered? is everything transfered 
to the taker? is the taker fit to the job? who else is on the market? what 
is the agenda of the transfer? what is the business plan?

The real problem is that iCANN just made itself competition to everyone it 
should cooperate with because instead of being a supporting organization it 
wants to be the ruling one. Again and again, this is a simple question of 
wording that French makes very clear. "gouvernance" is 'house keeping' not 
'estate governing'. If your house keeper directs your wife, your home is 
probably poorly kept. Whatever the legal status and the place of birth of 
your house keeper, and whatever the contract she works under.  Let KISS so 
we better understand.

Jefsey

On 18:23 19/04/01, Roberto Gaetano said:
>Thomas,
>
>I think that this is the real question we are trying to answer (with very 
>little success so far): what is ICANN and what should it be?
>- is it an (industry-driven) standardisation body?
>- is it a trade or professional society (self-regulation body)?
>- is it a (government-driven) regulatory body or agency?
>
>IMHO, the confusion is that it is a little bit of all.
>- as an industry-driven standardisation body it sets standards (criteria), 
>like adoption of UDRP
>- as a professional society it decides what are the criteria to get in 
>(Registrar and/or Registry accreditation, for instance)
>- as a regulatory body it tries to enforce the standards it has set as a 
>standardisation body
>
>The main problem is to figure out the legal framework in which it 
>operates, because depending on what point of view you take its legal 
>liability is different.
>Of course the jurisdiction is Califirnia, but what will be the parameters 
>of judgement if there will be a lawsuit? (being this show run in the US, 
>the correct question is not "if?" but "when?")
>
>IANAL, and therefore I have a very foggy idea on whether somebody that has 
>not been picked in the first run of TLDs has any chance to win a lawsuit, 
>and on what grounds. What is most scary is that there are chances that 
>he/she may win a lawsuit when the TLD is already operating with a 
>different Registry, with all the consequences you may think of.
>Or will USG, by endorsement of the choice of ICANN BoD, guarantee adequate 
>legal protection (but in that case, forget all self-regulatory industry 
>effort nonsense, ICANN is acting under strict authority of USG and Dave 
>Crocker is right, we are facing a US regulatory body, with some 
>"international" window-dressing).
>
>Regards
>Roberto
>
>
>
>>From: Thomas Roessler <roessler@does-not-exist.org>
>>To: ga@dnso.org
>>Subject: Re: [ga] Re: iCANN's protection
>>Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 08:31:24 +0200
>>
>>On 2001-04-18 15:15:25 -0700, Dave Crocker wrote:
>>
>> > Let's just check a question about the use of the term "monopoly".
>>
>> > There is a type of oversight body, sometimes called a "public
>> > utilities commission".  It does not provide direct service;
>> > rather it oversees the work and pricing of those organizations
>> > that DO provide service.  I have never heard anyone refer to such
>> > a commission as a monopoly.
>>
>>First of all, the C in ICANN stands for corporation, not for
>>commission.  I'll quote Kent on that importance of that distinction
>>(<20010408082523.A15420@songbird.com>; the quoted text in the
>>beginning is from Siegfried Langenbach):
>>
>>| >  Making representatives ( elected boards ) responsible to those
>>| >  who elected them is a fundamental issue IMO ( otherwise they are
>>| >  not representatives in the words meaning ).
>>|
>>| In fact, they are not "representatives", and they cannot legally be
>>| so. That is a crucial difference between a government and a
>>| corporation; ICANN is a corporation, and its directors, by law, have
>>| a fiduciary duty to the corporation and its purposes, and not to the
>>| people who (s)elected them.  This is an absolutely fundamental
>>| distinction.
>>
>>Second, I'd like to recommend
>><http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?monopoly> to you:
>>
>>| Etymology: Latin monopolium, from Greek monopOlion, from mon- +
>>|       pOlein to sell
>>|
>>|
>>| 1 : exclusive ownership through legal privilege, command of supply,
>>|       or concerted action
>>| 2 : exclusive possession or control
>>| 3 : a commodity controlled by one party
>>| 4 : one that has a monopoly
>>
>>Third, you may wish to have a look at the California PUC's web
>>pages, where their legal basis, their organization, and public
>>representation in the process are at least roughly described.
>>You'll note that ICANN looks vastly different.
>>
>>--
>>Thomas Roessler                     <roessler@does-not-exist.org>
>>--
>>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@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