| | At Large Membership and Civil Society Participation in ICANN |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
|
.af Redelegation: Another Government-Initiated Redelegation
|
Log in/Create an Account
| Top
| 10 comments
|
Search Discussion
|
|
|
|
The Fine Print:
The following comments are owned by whoever posted them.
We are not responsible for them in any way.
|
|
 |
|
I agree there is nothing at all inherently suspicious about the chronology. And, since there's consent from the incumbent, I don't think this is a precedent for government control -- all that other stuff is what lawyers call dicta, and regular people call fluff. Or, at least, that's the best way to treat it.
But, it's always a good time to ask -- given that the assent of the incumbent is the key to most legitimate re-delegations -- what burden should "IANA" shoulder in such cases to satisfy itself that the consent is real? (And, in cases of conflict and skullduggery [icannwatch.org], uncoerced?)
|
|
|
|
[ Reply to This | Parent
]
|
|
|
|
Duty to enquire?
by michael
|
|
|
|
|
A good question.
In terms of verifying if consent is real and unforged (as per sex.com) then the normal IANA procedure to to insist upon a reply to a verification e-mail sent to the admin and technical contact e-mail addresses.
This seems to be one of those rare cases where that is not possible and I suppose a judgement was made that it wasn't so important.
Working out if it is uncoerced is more difficult and I am unsure if ICANN can do much apart from take things at face value. A logical exception would be if there is some reason based on previous public or private statements to doubt the sincerity of the agreement.
|
|
|
|
[ Reply to This | Parent
]
|
|
|
|
|
Great question. Because "assent of the incumbent is the key to the most legitimate re-delegations," there should at least be a self-imposed duty to enquire into the validity of consent. Further, both ICP-1 and RFC 1591 state that when management is transferred from one organization to another, the IANA "must receive communication from both the old and new organization that assure the IANA that the transfer is mutually agreed." What purpose does this requirement serve if there is no duty to confirm the authenticity of a communication?
|
|
|
|
[ Reply to This | Parent
]
|
|
|
Privacy Policy: We will not knowingly give out your personal data -- other than identifying your postings in the way you direct by setting your configuration options -- without a court order. All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their
respective owner. The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008 by ICANNWatch.Org. This web site was made with Slashcode, a web portal system written in perl. Slashcode is Free Software released under the GNU/GPL license.
You can syndicate our headlines in .rdf, .rss, or .xml. Domain registration services donated by DomainRegistry.com
|
