Re: [icann-eu] Does the ICANN legally exist (this is not a joke)?

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

Alexander and Jefsey,

  Jefsey, Alexander is essentially correct here.  I tried to indicate this
in my previous response as well.  It does seem reasonable that if the
ccTLD registries are to pay a full 1/3 of the ICANN budget, as ICANN
is demanding, that they should have seats on the board and the DNSO NC.
de Blanc is on the NC currently, but that is not necessarily representative
of the ccTLD registries adequately.

  Alexander, existing gTLD registries can be considered represented
in ICANN through the Registry constituency of the DNSO, however
this does not give the adaquate ICANN board representation either.
In fact, the current ICANN board refuses to recognize most of the
existing gTLD registries, deciding that they are "Rogue" in nature.
That is a highly subjective evaluation, and as such not reasonable
representitive.

Alexander Svensson wrote:

> Jefsey Morfin wrote:
> > "ICANN being a no member corporation, does ICANN exist according the laws
> > of your country and if not may a corporation of your country enter into
> > legally valid relations with it?"
>
> Errr... Jefsey,
> it seems to me that it is only important whether ICANN
> exists according to the laws of California (and the
> United States). Your state shouldn't have to approve the
> inner workings of an Australian Pty. Ltd., a German e.G.
> or an Irish teoranta for you to do business with it --
> as long as it is recognized by .au/.de/.ie domestic law.
> (I would presume there is an international agreement
> roughly equivalent to the Vienna CISG for goods. Lawyers?)
>
> And it seems to me that it does not violate California
> laws, as the CA Corporations Code explicitly provides for
> Non Profit Public Benefit Corporations without members
> http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/calawquery?codesection=corp
> http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=corp&group=05001-06000&file=5310-5313
>
> (For the record: There may of course be good reasons for
> ICANN to become a corporation with members, my point is
> that ICANN isn't illegal in California because of its
> lack of members.)
>
> From a quick glance at the Corporations Code it looks to
> me as if only persons can become members, and the
> membership is non-transferable. This doesn't look
> favourable for a 'silent takeover' by the ccTLDs without
> much ado;
>
> I'm sorry, but I think you are on the wrong track here,
> and I also disagree with handing over ICANN to the ccTLDs
> and gTLDs -- this does /not/ fully address the @large
> concerns.
>
> Best regards,
> /// Alexander

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman INEGroup (Over 112k 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 9236 fwd's to home ph#
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208