[governance] oversight

[Laina Raveendran Greene]

Thanks Adam for redefining the issue I raised before and taking Lee's input
as well, to make it a "good start" (as Jeanette puts it to Ian) to reaching
some compromise or solution. 

I had suggested before, that I do hope we can either seek advise or get
someone on this list with experience or history of how such "int'l bodies"
are created in the US to see how we can formulate a compromise acceptable to
the US delegation and achieve the spirit of what we needed through the likes
of some sort of "host country agreement" as proposed by IG caucus.

Meanwhile,  it is also interesting to see in Danny Younger's posting that
the issue of revisiting of jurisdication is already in ICANN so it would be
good to see how we can use this to our favour too.

Best,
Laina

-----Original Message-----
From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org
[mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Adam Peake
Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2005 5:44 AM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
Subject: Re: [governance] oversight

>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

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