[discuss] governments and rule of law (was: Possible approaches to solving...)

Thu Feb 27 20:20:49 UTC 2014

Really? Five paragraphs of diatribe that fundamentally have nothing to do
with what I wrote, which only was a suggestion that we avoid legal jargon
if possible. That was the issue in my post. I said nothing about the
substance of what you had written.

But as long as we’re at it: Yes, here. Corporation law is not global. It’s
not even national in some countries. You chose to raise points that
related to ICANN’s legal structure, which is a matter of California law.
You chose to use a legal term in that context that has no meaning “here,”
meaning the US, California, or even Michigan where I am. You confused the
discussion in the process, particularly since there is a similar term that
does mean something “here.” As an aside, I have had many occasions to work
with legal systems in other occasions. In each case, I used legal terms
that mean something “there.”

Don

On 2/27/14, 12:27 PM, "Elisabeth Blanconil" <info at vgnic.org> wrote:

>At 16:37 27/02/2014, Don Blumenthal wrote:
>>We¹re having enough confusion with technical definitions on this list.
>>Let¹s not add legal jargon to the mess.
>>
>>The term ³mortmain² has meaning in US law. I never have seen
>>³main-morte,²
>>and the definition that you suggest for the term is not what mortmain
>>means here.
>
>"Here?"   We are discussing global issues.
>This is how a no-member corporation qualifies
>"over here". That you never saw does not disqualify reality.
>
>The issue is the purpose of ICANN. The reason why
>it was incorporated in California under a statute
>used by golf-clubs was quite disputed. The author
>explained and justified the choice. This choice
>is obviously not in line with what ICANN does.
>This is why there is a need to reorganize ICANN
>(something they seem to call globalization and to define).
>
>> >http://archive.icann.org/en/comments-mail/comment-bylaws/msg00025.html
>> >http://osaka.law.miami.edu/~amf/individuals.htm
>
>Lawyers terminology rhetoric is fine but at the
>end one has to come to the meaning.
>
>We techies are dumb stupid. A term equals a
>meaning. We loop process them with "if then else"
>until it makes sense. ICANN as one of the VGNICs
>makes sense; otherwise it does not. This is what
>we identified as the BUG (being unilaterally
>global), and bugs are to be fixed. This is what
>we do in the best interest of *our* operations.
>
>You do what you want: this is the Internet. As
>Michel Gauthier reminded it, you have to be
>conservative in what you say (you speak of what
>you know, we speak of what we know in the proper
>terms) and be liberal in what you receive (you
>try to understand the others' terms and not to
>censoor them according to your vocabulary).
>Otherwise networking does not work and you are
>by-passed by innovation (in this case, pure
>continuation of a 35 years old politically over-delayed project).
>
>Cheers!
>Hebe
>
>
>> >What is interesting is that Joe Sims who designed ICANN for Jon
>> >Postel wites: "in that real world,  ICANN's mission is extremely
>> >limited:  to maintain the stability of the DNS. Or, to put it more
>> >simply, to not screw it up.  This is the prime objective, the
>> >overriding core task, the critical job.  Everything else is
>> >secondary, or even lower than that, in importance and priority, and
>> >that includes anything that can remotely be described as governance".
>> >
>> >Actually ICANN cooperates and sells DNS stability of the "IN"
>> >ICANN/NTIA class (see ICANN Affirmation of Commitment). VGNICS is
>> >about the common support of all those who cooperate to the whole DNS
>> >stability.
>> >
>> >Hebe
>> >
>> >
>> >_______________________________________________
>> >discuss mailing list
>> >discuss at 1net.org
>> >http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>