<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
Thanks for the great info and disclaimer!<br>
<br>
Just to note that the derivation of this opinion from the facts is
one in which we may disagree, as this depends on one's predilection.
Unless cautiously stated (not necessary on this list) this kind of
view is apt for abuse to forestall evolutionary change.<br>
<br>
Immunities can and certainly are abused (e.g. Ban Ki Moon was the
first SG to sit in on military planning for the bombardment of
Libya) but there are reasons for the immunity - once an organisation
is perceived as carrying out <u>legitimate</u> international
functions these immunities are a means to get the job done. <br>
<br>
On getting many countries to agree on anything, well global
financial liberalisation (pre-crisis and even now) is continuing
unabated - so I guess there is optimism of a sort.<br>
<br>
Riaz<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 2012/09/04 07:19 PM, Milton L
Mueller wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD220CD2E@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu"
type="cite"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">However,
as I have emphasized again and again, California Corp. law does
not dictate what policies ICANN makes, it only structures the
organizational form of the corporation that runs the policy
development process. As legal frameworks go, it could be better
or it could be worse. As such, those who insist that it would be
more legitimate and accountable under international law are
almost certainly mistaken, given that governments and
international law would give the corporation all kinds of
immunities that would actually insulate it from certain forms of
legal accountability and public input. Not to mention the severe
geopolitics that would be involved in getting 150 governments to
agree on anything. </span></blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>