[At-Large] ITU versus ICANN

[Sivasubramanian M]

correction inline

On Sat, Oct 9, 2010 at 10:04 PM, Sivasubramanian M <isolatedn at gmail.com>wrote:

>
> On Sat, Oct 9, 2010 at 9:47 PM, John R. Levine <johnl at iecc.com> wrote:
>
>> > One proposal from Russian-speaking countries has gone so far as to call
>> for
>> > scrapping the GAC, and have ITU give itself veto power over all ICANN
>> board
>> > decisions. Even a compromise would essentially undermine the finality of
>> any
>> > ICANN Board policy.
>>
>> It's hard to see how the ITU could force itself on ICANN.  The US
>> government would have to agree, which seems rather unlikely.  As someone
>> else has noted, as a California non-profit ICANN cannot give anyone a veto
>> over the board, so it would have to reincorporate somewhere else, or the
>> US would have to sign a treaty specifically giving the ITU that authority.
>>
>
> These legal complications were probably well understood, yet this proposal
> surfaced, at the ITU Plenipotentiary. Irrespective of the legal feasibility
> or workability, this was calculatedly brought up. The Internet Community
> [can not afford to be] silent on this, because the Diplomatic impact of even
> this unworkable idea is unknown. We can't take ITU mischief so lightly.
>
> In this context, in my article I raised a larger question which definitely
> requires attention: Should the Telecommunication Business Union continue to
> have the privilege of this extraordinary partnership with the Governments of
> the World?
>
> Sivasubramanian M
>
>
>> Fat chance.
>>
>> Sometimes when it sounds like a lot of hot air, it really is a lot of hot
>> air.  I entirely agree that ICANN has a lot of self-inflicted wounds and
>> self-generated enemies, but this isn't going anywhere.
>>
>> R's,
>> John
>> _______________________________________________
>> At-Large mailing list
>> At-Large at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
>>
>> At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
>>
>
>