>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.
>
>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.
20 years from now there will probbaly be an ICANN office in many
countires and some sort of summit once a year.
The theory is the memebrs control ICANN, not vice versa. Where it
is is not really relevant. The notion of a jurisdictin of cyberspace
may kick in by then.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
"Those who give up a little freedom for a little security
will not have, nor do they deserve, either one"
--Thomas Jefferson
