[governance] need for a host country agreement?

[Jeanette Hofmann]

Bret, I remember unpleasant side-effects of Californian law:

http://www.icann.org/santiago/membership-analysis.htm

It took me a long time to understand what a derivative lawsuit actually 
is. From a non american point of view it seemed bizarre that it 
prevented a membership organization in ICANN.

best, jeanette

Bret Fausett 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