[governance] need for a host country agreement?

[Veni Markovski]

Bret,
Thank you for the wise words.
People tend to forget things, which are obvious.

veni

At 08:20 27-09-05  -0700, you wrote:
>In calling for an adequate host country agreement for ICANN, please keep
>in mind that California law provides a number of protections for
>Directors, corporation members and the public in general that are in the
>interests of both civil society and Internet users. To the extent that
>the "host country agreement" is intended to provide privileges and
>immunities to ICANN from local law, remember the Auerbach v. ICANN
>lawsuit, backed by EFF, which ensured that a single Director was
>entitled to review the corporation's records against a claim by the
>President, General Counsel and a majority of the Directors that the
>records were private. That unfettered right to review ICANN's corporate
>records was guaranteed by California law. This is just one among many
>important provisions of California law that might be lost by insulating
>ICANN from local law. A host country agreement might make ICANN more
>international, but it also could have the unpleasant side effect of
>making ICANN more closed and less transparent.
>
>              Bret Fausett
>_______________________________________________
>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