Re: [ga] Re: Redelegation issues

["Roberto Gaetano" <ploki_xyz@hotmail.com>]

David Farrar wrote:

> >
> >Quite frankly, if ICANN staff are negotiating ccTLD contracts with these
> >countries, then they had better get a license from the U.S. Treasury, or
> >they should be arrested and imprisoned.
>
>Which is a good reason for ICANN not to be based in the US.
>

The point is not where they are based, but what is the legal jurisdiction. 
The UN are based in NewYork, but they act based on international treaties, 
which is not the case for ICANN.

Some of the cases listed are of countries where the embargo is based on 
international law (embargo decided by the UN), but we would have eliminated 
the absurdity of unilateral embargoes decided by a single country and not 
endorsed by the international community, like for instance US vs. Cuba, 
affecting the presence of the country on the international network 
(InterNet).

So the real question would be: Should ICANN be acting under international 
treaties, not under US law. Of course, with such outstanding international 
representativeness of ICANN, the chances of getting international status are 
pretty slim, I would say....

Best regards
Roberto


_________________________________________________________________
Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com

--
This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html