[governance] oversight

[Robert Guerra]

On 17-Oct-05, at 8:31 AM, Vittorio Bertola wrote:

>
> I think you have to ask this to the USG :-) If the question is  
> "would we
> accept that ICANN stays in the US, provided we get a reasonable HCA",
> the answer is definitely yes.
>

Interesting idea. Reminds me of the phrase - "status quo plus"  -  
that was mentioned before and during the prepcom. it is one option  
that would be good to explore....


The changing of ICANN's legal status from a 501c3 california non- 
profit to a HCA based in Marina Del Rey, well is first step. The next  
one would be GAC - should it change, be the same, etc ?



>
>> And then what language would we like
>> to see in the chair's paper? (1 or 2 sentences of
>> language for the paper.)
>>
>
> I'll give it a try, don't shoot at the piano player.
>
> "We recommend that ICANN is shielded from unilateral interference  
> by the
> government of the country who hosts it, through appropriate
> international law instruments such as a "host country agreement". Such
> agreement should ensure that decisions taken by ICANN cannot be
> overturned by the local government, and that all countries and
> stakeholders have the opportunity to access the resources managed by
> ICANN and to participate in its Internet Governance processes, without
> being affected by the policies of the local government."


let's try to be a bit more "positive".. making a reference to  
"interference" could be viewed in such a way that it has been an  
issue in the past. That will likely irk the US.

Let me suggest a shorter text:

We recommend that ICANN be legally based in the USA  through  
appropriate international law instruments such as a "host country  
agreement"




regards,

Robert

--
Robert Guerra <rguerra at privaterra.org>
Managing Director, Privaterra <http://www.privaterra.org>



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