Re: [ALSC-Forum] Re: Another model to consider

[Jeff Williams]

Karl and all stakeholders or interested parties,

Karl Auerbach wrote:

> On Tue, 21 Aug 2001, Vittorio Bertola wrote:
>
> > Generally speaking, the only point that makes me a little uncomfortable with
> > your recurrent arguments is that constant recall to California laws.
>
> While I understand your discomfort, I don't see how it can be avoided.

  Indeed true here!

>
>
> ICANN simply can't declare itself immune from the laws of the
> jurisdictions in which it legally exists.  And ICANN is tightly embedded
> into two major jurisdictions: California and the United States.

  Exactly.  However it seems that the ICANN BoD, and in particular the
ICANN staff would view or acts otherwise.

>
>
> ICANN is a California corporation, it has legal existance (in its current
> form) only because of California law.
>
> ICANN is also a US Federal Tax Exempt corporation - and that imposes many
> very stringent limitations on its activities.  That, like California law,
> is a non-discretionary matter for ICANN.
>
> Were ICANN to shift the basis of its legal existance to your country, than
> your nation's laws would apply.  That would merely shift the discomfort
> not eliminate it.
>
> When I was appointed a Fellow of Law and Technology at CalTech and Loyola
> I gave a talk on the process by which a private entity such as ICANN can
> evolve to have a limited, but recognized, sovreignty. The Red Cross is one
> example of institution that has probably reached this position.

  Yes, ICANN is not even close to reaching this position...

>
>
> One of the primary elements of reaching this status is the passage of time
> coupled with "doing things well".  ICANN has had neither and is still
> tightly tethered to the place of its creation.
>
> Yeah, I'm a Californian so I find the laws of California somewhat
> comfortable (but only somewhat ;-).
>
> Tamar Frankel, in the IFWP process and in the ICANN evolution, urged that
> ICANN go to the State of Delaware in the United States and ask for a
> special statute to be enacted.  That may still be possible.  But that's
> probably about as far as ICANN can go, at least within the next few years,
> to relax, but not eliminate, the strength of the bonds to is mother
> jurisdiction.

  I also urged the than "New Co", now ICANN to register their corporation
in Delaware.  At the time, Jon Postal, Joe Simms and Louis Touton were
strongly against such.  Therefore we are on this issue where we are.

>
>
>                 --karl--

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 118k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Contact Number:  972-447-1800 x1894 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208