> Furthermore, ICANN's Articles of Incorporation and BylawsXXXXX GAC.
> were written in such a fashion as to obligate ICANN's Board of
> Directors to "...carry...out its activities in conformity
> with relevant principles of international law and applicable
> international conventions..." as "advised" by ICANN.
could carry out its activities in contravention of relevant principles of
international law and applicable international conventions, but entities
which do so find that they can't do it for long. Maybe your point is that
there *are no* relevant principles of international law or applicable
international conventions, not that they should be contravened.
My point is that no known organizations of any kind have
such provisions and tie-ins in their basic instruments.
These are usually Complex of Law matters that are considered
by the organization's General Counsel in the course of real
cases in controversy. Instead, we have an intergovernmental
body established to make findings and promulgate agreements
on any matter it decides.
By any standards, this is not good jurisprudence or good
organizational practice.
much direct influence over ICANN's decision-making, then I might be with
you, but if the complaint is rather that there is a GAC at all, that nations
have any involvement with Internet governance, then I disagree.
Please indicate to me what about the coordination of names and
number among private networks and computer hosts - formerly effected
by two-part time researchers - portends of such matters of "Internet
governance" that it requires a free-lancing intergovernmental body
of potentially 200 some sovereign States??
There are plenty of other forums for sovereign States - with
considerable attendant checks and balances - to deal with "Internet
governance."
I am yet to hear an explanation of why something as important as the
Internet should operate outside the oversight of public authority. No one
Who is saying this? There is patently lots of "oversight" occurring.
What is there about Internet names and numbers that requires its own
specialized, permanent, free-lancing intergovernmental body? Inquiring
minds want to know.
thing, particularly in infrastructure-based network industries. The GAC
folks (the majority of whom I agree probably don't have a clue) are just
looking out for the public interest, which is, I'd venture to claim,
relevant here.
The question is whose interests are the following clueless looking after?
Argentina
Armenia
Australia
Austria
Bangladesh
Belgium
Brazil
Canada
Chile
Cyprus
Czech Republic
Denmark
Finland
France
Gambia
Germany
Ireland
Italy
Japan
Korea
Latvia
Libya
Malaysia
Mexico
Morocco
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Papua New Guinea
Peru
Singapore
Slovenia
Spain
Sri Lanka
Sweden
Switzerland
Taiwan
Tonga
Tuvalu
United Kingdom
United States of America
Vatican City State
Vietnam
Yemen
APT
EU
ITU
OECD
SPFS
WIPO
--tony