Re: [ICANN-EU] USG's ultimate control, transition roadmap

[camerons@cwcom.net]

Roberto, I didn't make myself clear here, your point is correct.  

What I meant is, that while there /is/ obviously a legal basis for organizations
like the UN, WTO and so on, this basis was only created in an  'ad-hoc' way
by prolonged and tortuous negotiations, specifically for that organization,
each time a new organization was set up.  The WTO took almost a decade of negotiation
to be established!

There is /not/, and I think if I understand your point you agree with me here,
any legal basis for 
saying 'right, we want a new international organization to do X and Y - by what
law should we incorporate it?' in the same 
way as you can establish a new charity or corporation under national law by
following a clearly established procedure.

>From:       "Roberto Gaetano" <roberto_gaetano@hotmail.com>

> Cameron,
> 
> I object to your point 1)
> 
> 
> >1) There is /no/ clear legal basis for international organizations with a

> >statutory
> >role.  (By 'statutory role' I mean those that governments allow to regulate

> >things - as opposed to pressure groups like, say, Friends of the Earth).

> >The
> >current international regulatory environment is a hotch-potch of different

> >organizations
> >which have grown piecemeal from diplomatic and commercial initiatives over

> >the
> >years.  Some are mainly fora for national governments (e.g. the UN and the

> >WTO),
> >some are effectively run by the commercial & public operators in an 
> >industry
> >sector (e.g. the ITU) and some appear to have no particular legitimizing

> >base
> >(e.g. the WIPO) but are successful both because they fulfil a useful role

> >for
> >economic actors in a sector, and a useful regulatory role for governments.

> 
> The legal basis for the organizations you mention (UN, WTO, ITU, WIPO) is

> the international treaty that the member countries have signed.
> 
> But this, and here I do agree with you, by no means applies to ICANN.
> For the record, the idea of creating a new "ad hoc" international treaty 

> organization was proposed in the past, but has been abandoned.
> USG, to name one, was strongly opposed to this - I wonder why ;>).
> 
> Regards
> Roberto
> 

cheers,
cameron