<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<font face="Verdana">I use the term "international incorporation" to
mean the creation of an international legal entity (or a body
corporate), the legal means of doing so, and legal status of such
an entity.... I find such a use of this term perfectly in order
and legitimate.. In earlier emails I said that such international
incorporation could be directly with the UN (or one of its bodies)
or it could be more independent, through a new treaty, and in the
latter case, yes, it will then be a 'international treaty
organisation'.<br>
<br>
Now, I see no logical necessity that an international treaty
organisation has to have a governance structure which is
inter-gov... It can be as the treaty defines it to be, and my
proposal is to have it defined as ICANN today is, its bylaws,
working methods, constituencies, and all. While of course the
treaty will have to be made among governments, but all of us, and
more importantly the US and its cohort governments, may/would
agree to such a treaty only if it sanctifies the current structure
and working of ICANN. Let that be the stating point.... And as
said earlier, such a treaty can be modified only if the US and its
allied governments agree, which would be never. That is the
guarantee ee have of maintaining ICANN's structure and work
methods intact even while its gets international incorporation or
legal status, and thus gets freed from the problematic
jurisdictional control of the US....<br>
<br>
What amazes me in all the responses I am getting is that no one is
either saying that the problem I have posed does not exist or it
is not important to resolve, nor providing any alternative ways to
resolve it. They are just arguing with parts of my proposal, which
is fine, although I think, while no doubt this is a somewhat
complex solution to a complex problem, no one has been able to
show why it really cant work. <br>
<br>
To remind; the problem I had posed was about the very likely
wrongful US's jurisdictional imposition on ICANN's process and vis
a vis the root server maintainer. I had given a concrete example;
of a US court pushing the well-known over-zealous US intellectual
property law and enforcement to take away the gTLD of an Indian
generic drug manufacturer even when the latter has no direct
business interests or activities in the US... What is your
response to such a very likely occurrence? Should we simply ignore
it? Or, do you not think it likely, in which case lets discuss
that.... You cannot simply not respond to this key global
governance problem that stares us in the face... (Apart from it,
is the less likely but still to be remained prepared for
possibility of the The Office of Foreign Assets Control of the US
playing hanky panky with the gTLD of a country that the US gets
into serious enmity with.... every country likes to remain
prepared for such an eventuality. You cannot deny them that right.
)...<br>
<br>
No one seems to want to address these key global governance
problems. Do they not exist? If they do, then what is your
response to and preparedness for these? parminder <br>
<br>
<br>
</font><br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On Monday 28 March 2016 04:36 AM,
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:bzs@theworld.com">bzs@theworld.com</a> wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:22264.26509.143540.495057@pcls8.std.com"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
On March 27, 2016 at 12:53 <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:johnl@iecc.com">johnl@iecc.com</a> (John R. Levine) wrote:
>
> I don't understand why we're wasting time with this nonsense. There is
> no such thing as "international incorporation" and any plausible UN or
> treaty alternative would give governments total control.
That was my problem.
I googled "international incorporation" for a while but didn't find
anything useful.
I did find some attorney sites which offered "international
incorporation" but they meant helping a (typically) US corporation add
a new incorporation in another country such as (typically) the Cayman
Islands.
So that was "international incorporation" more in the sense of
"international airport": More than one country of incorporation but
two was sufficient to merit the term.
It seems to be conflated, in this discussion, with an international
treaty organization (ITO) which is well-defined. There is even an
extensive list of ITOs here.
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_intergovernmental_organizations">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_intergovernmental_organizations</a>
So at least that's plausible. That the term actually exists is
encouraging.
Incorporation is, at least in US law, a fairly specific term. It
creates a fictional legal entity with limited liability and the
ability to, within broad limits, indemnify officers of the corporation
and others. But they are subject to the regulations and laws of the
incorporation jurisdiction, at least. And to engage in political
elections without restraint but let's not go there.
Looking through those organizations most though not all seem to be
chartered under the UN.
I couldn't find an incorporation of any of them, particularly non-UN
(e.g., EiroForum), but I only looked for a few minutes and it occurred
to me that someone more versed in this field could enlighten us
extemporaneously in a few words so why should I even attempt to do
this?
All that said what model, examples would be good, might this new ICANN
resemble?
And, as to difficulty, having located some potential model
organizations why not ask them, where founders are available, how
difficult it was to create them?
Put another way, why do I get the feeling too much of this discussion
is being manufactured de novo as if we were writing a movie script
only limited by our imagination and word juggling abilities?
And if that is the case I move to include a love interest, people
always like a love interest, particularly stakeholders.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>