[governance] host country agreement + "geostrategic innocence"

[Joe Baptista]

Laina - your approach is nonsense.  Why negotiate with people who have no
control over root infrastructure.  The WSIS should bypass the institutions
and go directly to the points of control - i.e. the root operators
themselves.

Indeed I hink the root operators world wide are ready to negotiate some
contractual provisions.  The recent move of F root server operator Paul
Vixie to support an alternative root being the orsn www.orsn.org is
indicative they can be approached and reasoned with.

At this time the Internets root infrastructure - which I remind all of you
IS NOT UNDER CONTRACT - is the point of control.  Not the United States
government nor ICANN nor IANA.  Deal with the source - not the secondary
issues.

regards
joe baptista

Joe Baptista, Official Public-Root Representative and Lobbyist to the
United States Congress and Senate / Tel: +1 (202) 517-1593

Public-Root Disclosure Documents: http://www.cynikal.net/~baptista/P-R/
Public-Root Discussion Forum: http://lair.lionpost.net/mailman/listinfo/pr-plan


On Mon, 17 Oct 2005, Laina Raveendran Greene wrote:

>
> Thanks Jovan for your input. Agreed on the immunities issue. I do however
> understand that there are varying degrees of immunity. When I worked at
> INTELSAT, I had a G4 status "international civil servant" which gave me
> immunity from taxes but not all the other immunities that UN officials and
> country diplomats had.
>
> So we need to focus on what problem we are trying to solve. I believe the
> issue is not to have ICANN be accountable and under the instruction
> unilaterally from the USG.
>
> So my question what is the alternative term to "host country agreement"
> which will lead us to what we are looking for, and what is the term which
> will be understood by USG for implementation to change ICANN from 501(c)
> California not for profit to more of an "international organisation".
>
> Laina
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org
> [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Jovan Kurbalija
> Sent: Monday, October 17, 2005 2:08 AM
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
> Subject: [governance] host country agreement + "geostrategic innocence"
>
> Here are a few comments on the latest discussion....
>
>
> Modalities about a host country agreement can vary. The general trend is
> towards the reduction of immunities in international affairs. The main
> difference, when it comes to immunity, is between iure gestionis (private
> acts of the entity) and iure imperii (the name was chosen with states in
> mind - the function of the state in exercising its sovereign power; within
> the current context we can "translate" this to a particular entity's
> realisation of its core functions).
>
> Let me bring this difference closer to our discussion. An internationalised
> ICANN could have immunity (ICANN as an entity as well as directors of its
> Board) in performing its core functions, e.g. running the root servers - a
> host government would not be able to use legal tools to question ICANN's
> decision on rote zone file, for example, or to overrule this decision (under
> iure imperii). But when it comes to other acts - contracts, employment
> arrangements, etc., ICANN would still have to observe national law (iure
> gestionis).
>
> I personally support the legal school of though that advocates a lower level
> of immunities. Diplomats and international civil servants should be shielded
> in performing their professional functions (immunity for activities), but
> they should not have broad and blanket immunity. In practice, immunity has
> already been reduced. Most diplomats are responsible and take care to
> observe local laws (one obligation of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic
> Relations!).
>
> All in all, "host country agreement" modalities can be adjusted to
> particular needs/circumstances.
>
> When we discuss a possible host we may use the concept of "geostrategic
> innocence" - a phrase coined by Diplo's senior fellow, Alex Sceberras
> Trigona (the former Minister of Foreign Affairs of Malta). Among the
> candidates for the title of the most "innocent" states are Finland, Austria,
> Malta (neutral but members of EU), Costa Rica, Switzerland, pacific island
> states, etc.
>
> Jovan
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> governance mailing list
> governance at lists.cpsr.org
> https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance
>
> _______________________________________________
> governance mailing list
> governance at lists.cpsr.org
> https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance
>
_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance