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

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

Jefsey and all,

  You Jefsey, are free to disagree with whomever and whatever you like,
as are others, of course.  I for one, do not see where I caused any confusion
of any kind.  Rather, I believe that I was simply more broadly informing
others of this threads discussion points that were good ones that needed
airing out a little.

Jefsey Morfin wrote:

> Dear Jeff,
> You have crossposted a response I partly disagree with and Alexander's
> previous position I totally disagree with to the copied people who were not
> copied of my initial post you discuss.
>
> You therefore oblige me to straighten the things as it may create a real
> confusion.
>
> 1. I ask a complex legal/tax question to Louis Touton and then on several
>      MLs because of a leak because I think their Members are educated
>      enough to find and document a competent specialist to address it.
>
>      This question is to know if the laws of their country allow a local
>      corporation to validly contract and pay the ICANN which is a "dead
>      hand" corporation (without any holder), and if yes if restrictions apply.
>
> 2. In a post-scriptum I documented a simple response to that situation
>      (I experimented as obvious to questionned uninformed stakeholders),
>      which is to consider the root as the directory of ICANN Members.
>
>      Reminded by Mike Roberts of the "Mebership analysis" document,
>      I explained that this very precise document is the reason why I used
>      the plain word "Member" (according to its "V.1" points which defaults
>      "Statutory Member" to "Member") as the foreign laws would also use
>      it in the same meaning. I also explained that this document was not
>      not even considering the international essence of the ICANN and,
>      since it summarizes the reflexion carried on Membership in
>      establishing the ICANN, this subject could not be considered as yet
>      even discussed. I added that IMHO this lack of analysis is the origin
>      of all the difficulties currently faced by the ICANN.
>
> 3. In that post-scriptum I developped a natural "cooperative" alternative
>      to the current "corporate" model of the ICANN.
>
>      IMHO this model is writen in every page of the White Paper, in the
>      bylaws, in what the ICANN tried and achieved since its begining and
>      respond to what cc/gTLDs, individual Domain Name owners, GAC,
>      Staff and @large are looking for, while fully respecting the contractual
>      rights of the USG and warrantying best the political and technical
>      stability of the Network. This model is partly hidden by the current
>      over importance of the ".com" TLD (that the ICANN wants to reduce).
>
>      This model is a bottom-up model where internet communities are
>      identified through their ISO 3166 TLD. These internet communities
>      are represented at Governmental level through the GAC and are
>      is supported/informed by their NIC (cf. Best Practice document)
>      which they may audit and their government should approve.
>
>      Under this model which calls _no_ change of the present ICANN
>      organization and considers the ICANN as the "common house" of
>      the Internet Community:
>
>      -  the supervision of the governements (cf. Mike Roberts letter as
>         endorsed by the GAC) is assumed through the GAC
>
>      -  the local communities are represented at the NIC level and at
>         the BoD level by elected @large Directors (I _do_ favor direct
>         election of BoD @large Directors for a better political stability
>         of the entire network, once it is a credible constituency of the
>         stakeholders [also the interest of the NICs]).
>
>      -  the ICANN is a technical body where NICs may cooperate
>         and share concerns among themseleves, with other stakeholders
>         and users. It is therefore natural they are its [statutory] Members
>         and that every SO representation at the BoD includes a NIC.
>         This way the NICs vote and control the ICANN budget without
>         taking any overwhelming importance.
>
>      This is absolutely _not_ handing the control of the ICANN to
>      ccTLDs !!!  But it makes the relations between the ICANN and
>      NICs a ccTLD's right and no more a ccTLD constraint. It should
>      therefore be expected a spirit of co-responsibility in the root
>      management, stability and development, in multilingual Domain
>      Names, in new TLDs applications, in reducing the Digital Divide..
>
>      This model do accepts the main gTLDs as ICANN/GA Members.
>      But the NICs are concerned by many other issues than the DN
>      issues. Also, the "million" of new TLDs, announced as possible
>      by a Director at the GAC open session, should probably not be
>      potentially included in the ICANN/GA.
>
> The professionnal responses I get up to now are :
>
> -  reminder about the "Membership analysis" by Mike Roberts.
>     I responded as per above..
>
> -  indications of ML Members having passed and explained the
>     legal/tax... question to highly specialized lawyers. I do not
>     expect much qualified responses before a few days. I did
>     not received any comment on the US aspects from Louis
>     Touton who was the first questionned two days before any
>     other (I wanted him to have more time but a leak to the press
>     forced me to post earlier than intended).
>
> -  your comments protecting the gTLDs rights (mainly because
>     of a typo which did not mention  them - in the Cooperative
>     Model - as belonging to the ICANN/GA..
>
> -  Peter de Blanc's comment (below) you copied to me. As I said
>     it is based upon an ncomplete and inexact presentation.
>
> -  @large oriented responses positive but not really documented
>     or negative (as Alexander's below) then expressing detailed
>     layman [dis]interest+[in]competgence in legal/tax etc... matters.
>
> I also obtained postive layman/uniformed stakeholder positions,
> but it should be polled in a professionnal way after a better
> education and on a larger number. However the interesting point
> is the word "obvious" used by most of them.
>
> At 10:02 08/12/00, Jeff Williams wrote:
> >Peter and all,
> >We [INEGroup] are in agreement with you completely...
> >I believe my response clearly indicates this.
> >
> >Peter de Blanc wrote:
> > > Just to set the record straight, I am not in favor of "handing over
> > ICANN to
> > > the ccTLDs and gTLDs"
> > >
> > > I am in favor of equal representation by various "stakeholders" as the
> > > original ICANN plan and philosophy.
> > > Peter de Blanc
>
> _Full_ agreement wih Peter.
>
> Stakeholders are both users (@large) and co-operators of the Internet (SOs).
> USG's intended "privatization" of the Internet is not to transfer the
> control to
> one single corporation but to the Internet Community and to foister
> compeition.
> The NICs are co-"network keepers", servicing the LICs and the global Internet
> Community.
>
> I say that ICANN should stand for "International Cooperation for ..." (what
> everyone one understand) rather than "Internatioal Corporation ..." (what
> many resent ... including large International Coporations). There is no owner
> in a cooperative: only stakeholders with rights to belong and to control, not
> subcontractors with the only obligation to deliver and pay.
>
> I underline that the Cooperative model implies that the local @large (which
> should correspond to the whole LIC) are close with the NIC or represented
> at the NICs' BoD. (Each country should be free to adapt to local history and
> constraints). This is fully in line with the Best Practices. It strictly
> warranties
> that the @large constituency will exist, is educated and informed at low cost
> and cannot be hijacked by private interests.
>
> Jefsey
>
> To respect your text and for the reader's understanding I retain your
> part addressing Alexander's response. I do not respond it as I fully
> addressed it above.
>
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Jeff Williams [mailto:jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com]
> > > Sent: Thursday, December 07, 2000 6:01 PM
> > > To: icann-europe@fitug.de
> > > Cc: vinton g. cerf - ISOC; icann board address; Karen Rose; Louis
> > > Touton; Peter de Blanc
> > > Subject: Re: [icann-eu] Does the ICANN legally exist (this is not a
> > > joke)?
> > >
> > > 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

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