[wg-review] No extension of time for ICANN.

[Len Lindon <info@humanrights.com.au>]

> = Roland Meyer writing to wg-review@dnso.org

> ICANN is specifically a California Corporation.

1. It is also specifically an "internet corporation"
which may (ha!) be a new multi-jurisdictional beast.

2. This special "internet corporation" status,
however bogus, may explain why ICANN breaches of
California and US law have been permitted to occur.

3. ICANN/Ca is still presumably subject to the
same dissolution and winding-up procedures that
apply to local corporate corpses even in MdR.
 
> No court in Australia has authority to break-up
> a CA corp, doing lawful business, in California.

1. An Australian authority (such as the ACCC, the
ACA or the High Court) could effectively end ICANN
jurisdiction in Australia-- and in such a way that...

2. The Australian decision could be swiftly and simply
registered or formally judicially recognised in every
other UN Member State in which ICANN purports to have
"internet jurisdiction".

3. To read most requested documents -- click Jurisdiction at
http://internetlaw.pf.com/subscribers/html/ILRForum.asp

> The whole thing is a red herring.

<sigh> It is certainly a holiday-overtime bonanza
for many of the staff and partners of some Top Global
Law Firms (mainly USA-centric) who are having to produce
analyses and scenarios on this thing for concerned clients
urgently. Anyone here seen one of these documents?

> "the inclusive root" [quote from earlier RM posting]

Is the whole Inclusive Root thing also a red herring?
Obviously not. Equally obviously neither is this
case, which hinges on ICANN's exclusion etc of the
inclusive root approach (cooperation and competition).

ICANN is over and the funnymoney is pouring in to
private/corporate internets and competitive root
services (watch the new ones spring up now that
the ICANN-induced drought is ending at last).

Just as some observers noted of the Microsoft
Breakup Case that the market had already moved on--
it may be that the ICANN Breakup Case will also
flag the time when it could be clearly seen by
many that the name/address market had moved on too.

After all, in one sense turning away from the ICANN
Control model is as simple and obvious as recognising
that the Emperor Has No Clothes. All that remains to
do is to invalidate and dismantle the contractual
web the spun by ICANNJonesDayISOCWIPOSAIC...
And this too could occur swiftly if "the market" wants it too:

"Compared with its $17 high in March,
Melbourne IT's 96.2 per cent decline
was the ultimate in underperformance
during 2000"
The Year's Ten Worst Performing Stocks
The Age, Monday January 1, 2001
Business p 3, Richard Salmons
http://www.theage.com.au