[governance] oversight

[Adam Peake]

>On 17 okt 2005, at 22.12, Lee McKnight wrote:
>
>>  And yes Congress will get in on the Act.
>
>isn't this only the case if the HCA is with the US?


Wondering about this while reading the 
(interesting) comments on INTELSAT (which seems a 
different beast from ICANN, one created by an Act 
of Congress the other by a statement of policy of 
the dept of commerce that explicitly "does not 
itself have the force and effect of law.")

I'd like to understand what it is we need a "host 
country agreement" to free ICANN from, and 
whether it's actually a host country agreement in 
the accepted sense (signed to release diplomats 
from parking ticket fines etc :-) or something 
else.  ICANN doesn't need diplomatic immunity, it 
needs to be able to conduct is operations 
globally without any restriction (potential or 
real) by US domestic law.  I just sent the quote 
below in reply to a note from Vittorio as what i 
thought ICANN needed:

"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."


How does a US organization usually get immunity 
from trade sanctions and the like, by application 
to the relevant agency (State, Treasury, 
Commerce?) or does it need some law passed by 
congress and a Host Country Agreement?  If it's 
the former, then perhaps we have something to 
offer to the US delegation as a compromise.

Adam



>And
>
>On Mon, Oct 17, 2005 at 01:58:09PM +0300, McTim <dogwallah at gmail.com> 
>wrote
>
>
>>  Does anyone really believe ICANN will change their location of
>>  incorporation based on WSIS outcomes?
>
>not specifically based on WSIS outcomes, but ICANN has shown that is 
>is interested in what others have to say and that it will consider 
>changes if good reasons can be found for reasonable suggestions.  so 
>yes i believe it is possible that ICANN will consider this as part of 
>a post MOU plan.
>
>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