[governance] more Re: Ideas that this mailing list has agreed to

[Jacqueline Morris]

in the first point - should the wording be government or should it be
entity, or something like that? Cause it is possible that  a corporate
entity or IGO or something could, in a MSH mode, try to overturn a
decision.
I would like to keep the host part as the host country agreement is
something that I think should be a pretty important part of the ICANN
reform...
Jacqueline

On 11/9/05, Adam Peake (ajp at glocom.ac.jp) <apeake at gmail.com> wrote:
> And this is OK, or not acceptable:
>
> "Appropriate commitments by a host government should provide
> privileges and immunities to ICANN to ensure that it is able to
> provide global service in accordance with its bylaws and mission. Such
> binding commitments should ensure that:
>
> * decisions taken by ICANN cannot be overturned by any single government;
> * all countries and stakeholders have the opportunity to access the
> resources managed by ICANN and its related entities;
> * ICANN is able to enter into commercial and other agreements in
> keeping with requirements of its bylaws and mission, enabling it to
> provide and receive DNS services globally, and
> * all stakeholders have the opportunity to participate in ICANN's
> Internet governance processes, without being affected by the policies
> of any single government."
>
> (I would like to change "host government", best to remove all
> suggestion of a host country agreement which I believe would be a
> problematic term for many governments.)
>
> Thanks,
>
> Adam
>
> _______________________________________________
> governance mailing list
> governance at lists.cpsr.org
> https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance
>


--
Jacqueline Morris
www.carnivalondenet.com
T&T Music and videos online

_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance