Re: [ga] GA/DNSO Funding Issues

[Thomas Roessler <roessler@does-not-exist.org>]

On 2001-08-27 16:15:26 +0200, Jefsey Morfin wrote:

>no-Member organizations were said "dead-hand" ownership in France 
>at least.

Which does have precisely what effect in reality, when applied to 
ICANN?

In fact, I seem to recall that you brought up this topic on 
icann-europe in December 2000:

| From: Jefsey Morfin <jefsey@wanadoo.fr>
| To: icann-europe@fitug.de
| Date: Thu, 07 Dec 2000 15:20:47 +0100
| Subject: [icann-eu] Does the ICANN legally exist (this is not a joke)?
| 
| Gentlemen,
| I asked a complex legal question to Louis Touton three 
| days ago without response yet. I suppose I may now publicly post it 
| on different lists as it interests the laws the whole world.
| 
| The question is to lawyers from every country:
| 
| "ICANN being a no member corporation, does ICANN exist according the 
| laws of your country and if not may a corporation of your country 
| enter into legally valid relations with it?"
| 
| I would like to build a table indicating the countries where 
| relations are no problem, the countries where relation are not 
| possible (if any) and the countries where this is grey area. I will 
| publish that table.
| 
| Thank you for your cooperation on this interesting issue.
|
| [...]

| From: Jefsey Morfin <jefsey@wanadoo.fr>
| To: Mike Roberts <roberts@icann.org>
| Cc: icann-europe@fitug.de
| Date: Fri, 08 Dec 2000 01:30:38 +0100
| Subject: Re: [icann-eu] Members of California non-profit corporations
| 
| [...]
| 
| 1. contracts and relations with 'no dead hand' countries will 
| actually turn being private contracts. Since the US courts also 
| accept to consider the foreign laws when ruling international 
| affairs, a contract signed between the ICANN and a 'no dead hand' 
| country will most probably broken by a US court refereeing itself to 
| the foreign low because its text would be analyzed as of commercial 
| nature. The tax impact is also to be considered since if declared 
| being private the money exchanges will be deemed at the best as 
| between the Chairs of the tow parties. Obviously being private the 
| contract will not be binding the ccTLDs and could not be accepted by 
| the GAC.
| 
| [...]

Since, according to your own messages from last year, it's not 
relevant what those who have no legal training say on this topic: 
Where's the professional advice you talked about back then?  Where's 
the legal professional to back your assertions from last year?  And 
if there's none, what is the point of bringing that topic up on the 
GA list, and what relevance does it have?

PS: Don't bother to reply privately.  I'm asking because I want a 
_public_ answer from you on this.  You're a candidate, remember?
-- 
Thomas Roessler                        http://log.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