Question: Actually ICANN is ruled under Californian law. Do you see a way to change this? Do you want to change this? -and why/why not. What can be the alternatives?

Nominee Replies

Andy Mueller-Maguhn - posted on 2000-10-02 00:37:22 Currently, ICANN does not only takes place under californian law, it also found a way to avoid that the at large members are members of this non-profit company under californian law. So the question of decentralisation and participation seems to be more a question of will, than of the lawful circumstances. Getting independent from USG may also lead to the question if californian or any other national law makes sense for this organization. I am also not a lawyer, but have enough experience in NGO/NPOs to know, that beeing a registred organization makes sense to have a interface to the buerocratic world. Not more, not less. If californain law bring concrete problems to a real user legitimated ICANN or to get independent from USG, I am open for alternative models - to have ICANN registred somewhere else, to have ICANN strictly informally or to have lotīs of ICANNīs under different laws. Olivier Muron - posted on 2000-09-28 06:27:26 During the discussions that led to the creation of ICANN, one of the mains concerns of the European industry and users was to build specific safeguards against extra-territorial application of U.S. law and U.S. public policies. Initial versions of the articles of incorporation and by laws have been amended for that purpose. Being incorporated in California ICANN fulfills its mission, with no difficulties so far due to its location. If a major difficulty would arise, alterrnative solutions would have to be studied. Winfried Schueller - posted on 2000-09-27 05:00:57 The question is if the Californian law offers ICANN the necessary liberty in what they are trying to do, or if the circumstances hamper ICANN in their daily work. ICANN is not yet in the position to decide by them self where they want to settle, due to the USG, but if ICANN finnaly becomes independent, I think it will be time to think about the advantages and disadvantages of being ruled under Californian law. Jeanette Hofmann - posted on 2000-09-26 17:51:31 Just as a disclaimer, I am not a lawyer. To start with the alternatives, there had been attempts to incorporate an organization under Swiss law. If I remember correctly, this had been part of the gtld-mou activities around 1997. The effort to establish a self-regulating body for the administration of the DNS was brought to a sudden halt by the US Government though. To make a long story short, the USG insisted on incorporating IANA's successor in the US (for the details: http://www.domainhandbook.com/). I doubt that the USG will ever change its mind on this issue. ICANN is incorporated under Californian non-profit law. This brings about some strange concepts of membership and personal liability that I am, admittedly, not really familiar with. And, yes, I would prefer an internationalization of ICANN - also with respect to its legal constitution. Alf Hansen - posted on 2000-09-26 04:12:06 1) Do you see a way to change this? Yes, when ICANN has proven to be as stable, private organisation, owned by the Global Internet Community (not USG), the jurisdiction can be discussed again. 2) Do you want to change this? Not necessarily. I think we should separate between jurisdiction (the choice of law) and venue (the choice of court). ICANN should be under one jurisdiction, but the other part could be free to select a local court. This could be a fair and acceptable compromise. (Note that I am not a lawyer...)