[governance] oversight

[Laina Raveendran Greene]

Avri and Tim,

Agree with your points, and if you read my intervention I did not suggest
the move as the answer. I was suggesting we do our homework to see what kind
of structure and process is needed within the US to "internationalise"
ICANN. I then suggested we then look to other countries for models either to
move or to have a more International friendly structure apply. Anyway, even
if it is "setup" elsewhere, it does not mean a move. (e.g. APNIC was
incorporated as a not-for profit in Seychelles in its early days but
operated out of Tokyo and then Brsbane.)

Laina
 

-----Original Message-----
From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org
[mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
Sent: Monday, October 17, 2005 7:47 PM
To: McTim
Cc: Governance Caucus
Subject: Re: [governance] oversight


On 18 okt 2005, at 08.06, McTim wrote:

>> 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).
>

I have long been a supporter of the Internationalization/host country
agreement.  that does not mean, at least to me, that they actually have to
move.  e.g, I don't see why it would be impossible for there to be a
reasonable host country agreement with the US (and with Belgium or wherever
else an office is located).  It is not a question of where ICANN is located,
just which laws they are subject to.

a.

_______________________________________________
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