Re: [IFWP] Latest on the Australian censorship

[Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law]

On Sat, 28 Aug 1999, Joe Sims wrote:

> the
> bylaws make no mention at all of GAC having anything at all to do with
> ICANN's "legal obligations", and they are perfectly clear that ICANN is not
> required to follow any GAC advice.  

FWIW, I have always read the bylaws exactly the same way. 

The issues that matter strike me as completely political and not a bylaws
issue.  Would ICANN have the spine to stand up to a strong demand by
governments that, e.g., a ccTLD be reassigned?

One might more profitably enquire if there is any law *external* to the
bylaws (e.g. national law, or even international law) that would require
some compliance by ICANN.  I know of none at present, but I have not
looked.

There are some things in the bylaws that I find open to interpretation or
confusing, but the fact that GAC as a formal matter has a right to be
heard and no more seems fairly clear to me, and Tony hasn't been able to
persuade me otherwise.

-- 
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 and humid here.   <--