"A.M. Rutkowski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Which reminds me - are there any historical examples where
>an entity playing a quasi-governmental role like ICANN has
>ever displayed such amazing behavior as we've witnessed over
>the past couple of weeks - and whether it doesn't essentially
>disenfranchise it from playing that role? It's worthy of
>research.
>--tony
Seems it was the common fare in the U.S. at least until the
Government Corporate Control Act was passed in the 1940s to
stop all the abuse that these run-a-way so called private
entities were up to as a way to cover what government was
doing. Since ICANN is being created as an effort to evade
U.S. law and constitutional obligations it can only do
things that are incredible. It starts out as a gangster.
ICANN seems to fit the pattern of what I saw described
in the GAO opinion that ruled that when the FCC tried
something much less flagrant a violation, was illegal
under U.S. law. The GAO opinion indicated that the
U.S. Executive branch created quasi-government bodies
in part to avoid any financial accountability and thus
the so called "private corporations" that were created
by government had none of the financial accountability
obligations of the U.S. government and were the effort
to avoid those obligations. The activities therefore
of such bodies were prime examples of financial
corruption.
I posted the GAO opinion info a few weeks ago.
Ronda
