On 10/04/2009 06:22 AM, John R. Levine wrote:
It might also be useful to remember that ICANN is incorporated as a tax-exempt charity (something that will not change under the new agreement), which means it is supposed to work for the public benefit.
More detail on this: ICANN has legal existence as a California "public-benefit" corporation. That is one form among several forms of non-profit corporation that under California's corporations laws. One of the reasons ICANN is extremely allergic to the word "election" comes from the action of that code - see my note on this at http://www.cavebear.com/archive/icann-board/platform.htm#full-members We can expect this allergy to come up in the context of the way in which the public (at-large community) director is chosen. We can expect ICANN's law firm, which is even more allergic to "elections" than is ICANN, to fight tooth and nail against any system in which the word "election" is used, particularly if that system of choosing is defined into ICANN's articles or bylaws. ICANN has a separate and distinct status in which it obtains what is called a 501(c)(3) exemption from US taxation (and is burdened with certain restrictions on its activities). ICANN obtained that exemption on the grounds that ICANN "lessens the burdens of government". Notice that that reason has nothing to do with whether ICANN does good for the net or the community of internet users as long as ICANN makes life easier for the US government. The California status has an interesting aspect - unlike for-profit corporation in which Directors are required to make choices in the best interest of the corporation, Directors of public-benefit corporations such as ICANN are required to expand the concept of what is in the best interest of the corporation to include the beneficial or harmful effect to the public interest of the proposed choice. This stuff can get complicated. --karl--