[MemberPubPol] Re: [chapter-delegates] FYI - in the coming discussion of the WGIG questionnaire

[avri doria]

On 7 jun 2005, at 21.34, Veni Markovski wrote:

> At 19:02 07-06-05  +0200, avri doria wrote:
>
>
>> So, to my mind, ICANN cannot become a full fledged international 
>> organization without shifting from its current existence as a US 
>> corp, to becoming an organization established with a host country 
>> agreement - even if that country were the US (the UN and others have 
>> host country agreements of the type discussed with the US).
>
> Avri,
> I have something which I can't understand - what's the reason for 
> having ICANN being subject to the principle of ex-territory?

For me it comes down to freedom from the political pressures existent 
in any one country.

> Would that make the work of ICANN better, if it is not accountable to 
> any laws?

No, ICANN, like all organizations must be accountable to rules.

When an organization organizes the treaty, it establishes the rules by 
which it will function, and is then subject to the rules - otherwise it 
breaks the treaty.

As i mentioned it is normal for the organization to be subject to local 
laws such as labor laws, sanitation laws etc..



> Do you think that if ICANN staff/directors have diplomatic immunity,
> that would help them?

I am not sure if diplomatic immunity is necessary for the staff.  
though often senior staff does get limited immunity with regard to the 
job functions to extend that freedom from political pressures and to 
allow them to do their job without external pressure.

> Or if they work under the UN-like umbrella, and don't pay taxes?

First I am not suggesting that they be part of the UN or under a UN 
umbrella.  there are many treaty organizations that are totally 
unaffiliated with the UN; e.g. the WTO and World Bank are both examples 
or the Bank for International Settlements in Mexico or even the 
International Potato Center in Peru.

Except for senior diplomats and staffers, I thought UN workers paid 
taxes.  I certainly have had to pay taxes whenever i have had a UN 
contract.
But again, i think this is part of the treaty that gets negotiated.  
While it makes sense to give senior staff immunity in the performance 
of their duties, taxation may be another issue.  It varies by 
organization and nation.  A nation might be happy to have ICANN on its 
shores and may decide that trading taxation for presence is of positive 
value to that government national interests.

Note: exemption from taxation is not that uncommon.  E.g. I know that 
in S. Korea, research workers in Gov't labs are exempt as an incentive 
for people to go into research instead of industry.   So while I don't 
think it is necessary, I guess I don't see it as a big problem.

>
> I still try to realize what's the point in having ICANN not being 
> subject to any laws, and perhaps I am misreading your words?

I think so.  They would be subject to local ordinance and any rules 
that they negotiated with the national government of their location.  
In fact there could be a whole host of national laws they would also be 
subject to depending on the treaty made.

The reason for not being subject to any particular country's law is to 
avoid the pressures that might come from irresistible political 
pressures within the host country.  Or even to avoid the semblance of 
pressure - which can, i believe, be as destructive as real political 
pressure (cite: Ceasar's wife and all that).

a.