On Fri, Apr 02, 1999 at 10:19:20AM -0800, Roeland M.J. Meyer splutters:
> >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.
>
> ... and stronger pressure from Congress to keep it in the USA.
>
> >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.
>
> If you don't see that it's both then you're hopeless, clueless, and
> useless.
Losing it, eh :-) Richard has already pointed out the obvious: there
is essentially nothing the USG can do in the long run to prevent the
internationalization of the Internet, including ICANN. In the long
run Congress's position is immaterial. Furthermore, I disagree with
your assessment of Congress's position in this matter -- there is no
unified pressure from Congress to keep ICANN in the USA. There have
been, of course, occasional rumbles from clue-deprived
congresscritters about "our" Internet. But the USG doesn't own the
Internet, despite these rumbles.
> Congress will get involved so fast, your head would spin off.
Hmm. You must be talking about a different Congress than I know
about. I've never seen them move fast on anything.
> They
> are barely tolerant of the process as it is playing out now. In case you
> don't know, Congress *makes* the laws in the US.
Thanks for that deep insight. It is, however, incorrect. Congress
is only one component of the law-making process. Laws must not only
be passed by Congress, they must also be passed by the Senate,
and signed by the President. Furthermore, after that they must then pass
judicial review.
Congress can't make arbitrary law; they are constrained in many many
ways, legally and practically.
> If they get involved, it
> is not only a political issue, it can and will become a legal issue shortly
> thereafter.
The depth of your thought never ceases to amaze me. Is Congress
going to pass special legislation turning ICANN into a branch of the
USG? In that case, how will you be able to sue them? Either ICANN is
a private corporation, in which case the USG really couldn't prevent
further incorporation in another country; or it is a USG special
case, and your hypothetical lawsuit is going to forge new and
interesting territory.
> Do you so soon forget what the primary issue was, with the gTLD-MoU and the
> USG? (Hint: Something about a Suiss location).
In fact, that was a secondary issue.
> That's why the DOC/NTIA has
> it now. It was rudely taken from NSF for that very reason.
> (<sheesh> I can't
> believe that you're so dense!)
To which I respond: What a marvelously simple view of the world you
have!
> >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.
>
> Nope, I am simply acknowledging political and legal reality, rather than
> pipe-dreaming.
Well, good luck with your reality.
> I'm going to quit responding to you. It's not good for my equilibrium.
OK. It's a waste of time for me, too.
--
Kent Crispin "Do good, and you'll be
[EMAIL PROTECTED] lonesome." -- Mark Twain
