RE: [ga] serious participation in ICANN processes

[Jefsey Morfin <jefsey@wanadoo.fr>]

Dear Roeland,

As Roberto told it, my point was not that discussing if the APA, membership
for a California corporation, etc... was irrelevant in the case of a 
Californian
corporation. My point was that if the iCANN is only a Californian corporation
interested in such a kind of petty protection at $ 100.000 a month, it is 
of no
interest to us and (international by nature) users.

I agree that there was no other possibility at the time (not now) to
discuss a non US iCANN. But there were two possibilities to play it:

-  as an international body incorporated in California and hence
    refering every five minutes to its international nature, interests and
    duties and making its best to use the californian rules to the best
    of its international role.

- as a petty californian trick, using every coma in the 5XXX paragraph,
   and every other non writen semicolumn in the APA not to be bound
   by it while it should, and then every ignorance of the DoC to violate
   the White Paper and every power abuse to cheat the bylaws....

What I say is I am fed up with e-Napoleon and Mr. Tricks and I want
the iCANN to become an organization in line with the White Paper
and a revised by the users and for the users RFC 1591. When you
think that the document documenting the Member ploy (santiago)
*never* alludes to the international nature of the iCANN and of its
members and sets-it up like a retired people Golf Club (please
reread it)....

So today IMHO there are more interesting issues that discussing
the US law. IMO there is a need for action. We are the only group
of people which does already exist and may understand what is
happening now, agree and may be carry an action to oppose it.

The first action being - once having commonly identified the true
situation - to explain it around, in 243 countries, as Leah does it
in the USA.

But what hurt Leah is just a piece in a pattern. There is obviously
far more. Also, since Leah started fighting - for us all - things have
developped and extended a lot.

I do not care to know if I am or not a Member of the iCANN. I
say that to be credible in front of the press, of Govs, of users
the iCANN must be something better that a petty californian law
trick.

The iCANN must have international Members (IMHO the national
and marketing internet communities - i.e. the NICs).  If they still
want to have no Members (it is just bylaw change) it is up to us
to expose this trick until they are forced to change.

IMHO there  are not so much time left before the Intenet is
Staffsterilized. Just think: how do you want to propose an innovative
TLD with a standard TLD agreement already detailing everything....
You can only be a CC of .com.

Jefsey






On 22:15 05/04/01, Roeland Meyer said:
>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:ga_chair@hotmail.com]
> > 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 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