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

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

Jefsey and all,

Jefsey Morfin wrote:

> Alexander and Jeff,
>
> At 23:01 07/12/00, you wrote:
> >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.
>
> The Cooperative Model I propose gives them 3 seats at the BoD.

  Your still missing the point Jefsey.  First of all 3 seats for the ccTLD
registries is not adequate to represent 1/3 of the ICANN budget, second
the existing gTLD registries in your plan will have NO seats on the board.
That is not representative, Jefsey.

>
>
> >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.
>
> I made a typo in my post. ICANN/GA includes in the Cooperative Model
> I propose both ccTLDs and gTLDs. However I favor (this is only my
> proposition and does not engage the whole model) ccTLDs having
> more power and presence than the gTLDs because they are related
> to many other aspects than the gTLDs. As an example, ccTLDs
> manager are also engaged in the IP delivery, interation with their
> local Gov. (cf. Mike Roberts' letter).

  Mike Roberts "Letter" is inconsistent with realistic representation, and
as such is not relevant to the necessary resolution.  This ICANN Board
must bend, and change in both it's makeup and in attitude.

>
>
> >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?)
>
> A question can hardly be an error. The only response you can give
> is "in the German case Yes or No".
>
> Now concerning the international policy of Germany, I suppose
> it is the same as avery other taxed country and most probably
> than other European countries (I feel we just signed an European
> tax agrrement); I suggest you do not create an US based Trust
> before discussing it with your tax advisor.
>
> > > 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.)
>
> This is obvious. This is not the point.
>
> > > 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;
>
> This is a minor point as the implementation of the Cooperative
> Model I propose should be first tested/ It would be wrote in the
> marble after the end of the àlarge study. This gives time to lawyers

  Lawyers with too much time will rarely accomplish anything of value.

>
> .
> If you look at the "ICANN membership-analysis", the DNSO
> constituency Members are very much NSM. But the DNSO/BC
> is made of corporations. I am neither prophet nor lawyer. I just
> experimented that people understood and agreed to a solution
> which seems to be a stable solution to the difficulties faced
> by the ICANN.

  But what you are proposing is NOT stable.

>
>
> Everyone his job, plenty of room for enhancements..
> .
> > > 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.
>
> If you read without bias, you will see that the Cooprative Model
> gives back the ICANN and the NICs to the organized @large as
> voted by  the ccTLDs/DNSO and desired by the GAC.
>
> Jefsey

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