RE: [ga] serious participation in ICANN processes
Sorry about the PS;
I failed to point out that the chief prosecutor of California is the only
one that can bring ICANN to task. With the current energy crunch, it is
unlikely that it will get much air-play. They all have larger fish to fry.
Politically, it is a lower priority.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Roeland Meyer [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
> Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2001 1:15 PM
> To: 'Roberto Gaetano'; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com
> Subject: RE: [ga] serious participation in ICANN processes
> Hello Roberto and Jefsey,
> The problem is a basic one, the company has to be
> incorporated somewhere.
> 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.
> 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). 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).
> > From: Roberto Gaetano [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
> > 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 email@example.com list.
> Send mail to firstname.lastname@example.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 email@example.com list.
Send mail to firstname.lastname@example.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html