[governance] oversight

[McTim]

Hi VB,

ok, very LAST mail for tonight ;-)

On 10/18/05, Vittorio Bertola <vb at bertola.eu.org> wrote:
> McTim ha scritto:
> > Do you honestly think ICANN would go for this?
> >
> > I believe this is a non-starter.  I think talking about this would be
> > a waste of cycles.
> >
> > (...)
> >
> > This is probably not something the US would agree to either.  I might
> > be wrong, but in the current polarised environment, I don't think so.
> >
> > (...)
> >
> > and we'd be wasting our time IMO.
>
> On the other hand, if we start from the assumption that no change
> whatsoever would ever be accepted by the US, then we can all go home :-)

This is not my position.

I think the USG will accept changes as long as it is done inside the
current IG mechanisms and is better than what we have now.

> So I would rather try to figure out some minimally invasive changes that
> can satisfy some requests from the rest of the world and still not be
> too shocking for the US.
>

I would like the status quo minus, but it needs to be less threatening
than current text. (see first 3 paras I reworked and sent a few
minutes ago).

> For example, when talking to the present ICANN management, I did not
> have the impression that they were prejudicially opposite to moving the
> legal seat of the corporation or changing its legal form.

This may be true. My point to Laina was that I don't think they will
move to CH as Laina suggested (they have a Brussels office already).

--
Cheers,

McTim
nic-hdl:      TMCG

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