An article on US federal government corporations appears at
http://www.law.miami.edu/~froomkin/articles/reinvent.htm
You will note there that most of the corporations the GCCA aimed to squash
were formed by US government employees and owned in whole or part by the
USG. ICANN is different: no USG employees formed it, and the USG owns none
of it. However, the USG appears to have urged that it be formed, and
provides its main support with a critical contract (although significant
funding comes from outside the USG, via donations). So ICANN is probably
in technical compliance with the letter of the GCCA, even 31 U.S.C. sec
9102 (although that's the closest call). Whether it complies with the
spirit of that act is another question.
On Mon, 28 Jun 1999, Ronda Hauben wrote:
>
> "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
>
>
>
--
A. Michael Froomkin | Professor of Law | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA
+1 (305) 284-4285 | +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax) | http://www.law.tm
--> It's hot here. <--
