Re: "Internet Names *and* Addresses"

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

Dave and all,

Dave Crocker wrote:

> At 04:34 PM 2/17/98 -0500, Tony Rutkowski wrote:
> >Thanks for highlighting the distinctions here.  Ira explains
> >this well to public gatherings.  His intention is to achieve
> >minimal liability - not by creating a quickie cartel under
> >Swiss Law - but by carefully and lawfully constructing the
> >organization under U.S. law, paying careful attention to
>
> If one eliminates the hyperbole and inflammatory language used above and,
> instead, looks at the actual details behind the GP proposal and the actual
> details of the gTLD MoU, one find that they have rather similar structures
> and accountability.  Ironically if one probes deeper, one finds that the
> GP's actual international accountability is vastly less than that of the
> gTLD MoU.

  If one eliminates Dave's sarcastic language above, one would be left with
very little.

>
>
> And, of course, the best deception of all is characterizing the gTLD MoU as
> a Swiss cartel, since it is only the subordinate operations unit, CORE,
> which is a Swiss Association.  The policy group is incorporated in
> Delaware.  As I recall, Delaware is part of the US.

  You recall that Delaware is in the US?  You should know this Dave!  Shame,
shame.  As for CORE being a Swiss Association is exactly the point that
Tony and I are making.  It is exempt from many legal libilities just becouse
it is a Swiss Association.  Thi should not be allowed in this sense.  In stead
it should take a leadership stand in the area of Legal responsibility for the
betterment of the potential stake holders.  Becouse there is a precieved
need to hide behind the protections of a Swiss Association appears to
many to be a curious position and an attempt to say, "well maybe we
will make some bad dicisions, but we don't want to be liable for them."
I find this attitude by the actions of the MoU and CORE in particular,
in this case to be scandelous at best.

>
>
> In any event, it would be fascinating to see Tony attempt to provide a real
> analysis which supports the claims he is making about the vast and
> substantive differences and, in particular, the legal and representational
> superiority afforded through the GP.

  Legal superiorty is not really the issue here.  Legal responsibility is.  And
in
this case of comparison it is obvious that the GP has a edge.  Though I believe

myself, that any form of legal shurking of responsibilities on either side
should
be regulated and up to the stake holders spicificaly.


>
>
> >features.  This should make the organization more acceptable
> >to industry and users by leaving some exposure to legal norms
> >and judicial process of the U.S. in the areas of antitrust,
> >First Amendment guarantees, privacy, and tort.  If people
>
> Ahh, so Tony's earlier claim that the venue for chartering doesn't matter
> isn't true.  You can have chartering anywhere you want, as long as it is in
> the United States?  This would appear to be based on the assertion that
> only US laws are adequate for protection of public interest.  An
> impressively ethnocentric view.

  Our US legal syatem is certianly far from perfict.  This I certianly grant
you Dave.  But there are few legal systems that offer as much protection for
the
avrage man as ours in the US.

>
>
> d/
> ----------------------
> Dave Crocker                                           +1 408 246 8253
> Brandenburg Consulting                            fax: +1 408 249 6205
> 675 Spruce Dr., Sunnyvale, CA 94086  USA           www.brandenburg.com
>
> --
> DOMAIN-POLICY administrivia should be sent to <listserv@lists.internic.net>
> To unsubscribe send a message with only one line "SIGNOFF DOMAIN-POLICY"
> For more help regarding Listserv commands send the one line "HELP"

 Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com