Kent Crispin wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 01, 1999 at 10:44:41PM -0800, Roeland M.J. Meyer wrote:
> [...]
>
> > >Uh, Roeland, if ICANN decides that it needs to change to a Swiss
> > >corporation, what are you going to do? Sue in Swiss Court? Do you
> > >have a Swiss trademark?
> >
> > Irrelevant, they're definitely NOT going to do that, the USG won't let
> > them, period. Are you going to claim otherwise?
>
> 1) Yes, I am going to claim otherwise. The USG has an oversight
> role for ICANN at this point in time; that won't continue
> indefinitely. The USG has made that very clear, and there is strong
> pressure from other governments to get the USG out of this role.
>
OTOH, the PGMedia decision suggests that ICANN's ability to successfully
defend itself against legal challenge may be directly proportional to the
degree of oversight retained by the USG.
> 2) I'm sure that ICANN has no intention at this point of
> incorporating in another country, but it would be trivial for them
> to do so at any time -- it's a political issue, not a legal one.
>
> 3) The general point is that you are operating with provincial
> blinders -- your scheme *depends* on certain assumptions of
> jurisdiction, and doesn't generalize to an international context.
>
