DoC will put IANA functions up for competitive bid

RP: We're working on something now, we'll put something together, transmit it to Paul Twomey and Axel will sign it as Chair. By the way, I wanted to mention that, by virtue of the MoU, the NRO is the ASO.

HPH: One way the AC could handle this is the following: we give the EC our opinions on this paper. We had previously referred the Strategic Plan back to the EC, so I will simply reply to Paul Towmey's letter saying that it has been referred back to the EC and they will be hearing back from the chair of the EC. In this way the decision of what to do next would be up to the EC. The other option would be that the AC issue a statement anyway.

RP: The AC could also put together some thoughts about this eight-page document and send them to Axel so they are included as part of our ASO package.

LH: I definitely think that we should say something. I think doing it through the EC would be fine. We can't just abdicate our responsibility to comment on strategic policy even if our comment is simply "do nothing."

All members present agreed with LH.

LH: I think we only have two or three sentences that we want to say to ICANN:
We think that ICANN needs to increase its presence in regions outside North America;
We think that the major policy areas are addressing and the future of IPv6. The ASO makes specific policy recommendations as they continue to develop within each region; operational strategic input will be provided by the NRO EC.

AB: I would like to add one more: Instead of merely increasing its presence outside the United States I think that ICANN should try to free itself from US government control.

LH: It would be better to word it "of any government", not only the "US government." This is because, as RP pointed out, they could free themselves of the US government only to be controlled by some other government.

[ Reply to This | Parent ]

Re:NRO.NET Plans to Take Over the IANA From ICANN
by Anonymous on Wednesday November 09 2005, @08:48AM (#16457)

WW: One of the major problems from my point of view is that even if we assume that the MoU process is successfully completed and the obvious direct lines of control have been removed, this does not change the fact that ICANN is still under US jurisdiction, both under federal jurisdiction as well as under the jurisdiction of California. RP: I think that incorporation deals with some aspects of the organization but not with not how it actually conducts its own business, so I believe WW’s point is not valid. RP: For example, ARIN is incorporated in the Commonwealth of Virginia (even though we also deal with Canadian provinces, the other 40 states, etc.). Yet as we go through contracts and other matters the governing law that’s applied is not always that of the Commonwealth of Virginia, it's not even necessarily that of the country we're in: it’s a matter of where we do business. The incorporation status is there primarily for the purpose of finance, taxes and so forth. The policies that are being made in the ARIN region and the way ARIN conducts its business are not approved by the Commonwealth of Virginia or by the US government. Nobody from the Commonwealth or the government has ever demanded to see anything. WW: One question: If the US government issues another embargo regulation, then any entity functioning under US laws would be bound by those provisions. RP: Not necessarily, look at Cuba for example. There's an embargo with Cuba, yet ARIN did business with Cuba. I say that this problem will exist in whatever country you incorporate ICANN. When we were talking about incorporating the NRO we had the same problems everywhere we went, although some places were worse than others. I think it’s a bad argument to say if "the US government" would do something;" the correct argument would be to say if "any government" would do something. The real issue is whether ICANN is being controlled or manipulated by one government in particular, not the fact of where it's incorporated. ICANN could be incorporated in another country but it would still have a contract with the TLC so everything would still be the same. HPH: One way of solving problem this would be to put it under the UN umbrella. This way it would not be incorporated in any country in particular. HG: My understanding is that the MoU will be fulfilled and there will be not need for a new MoU. So there will be not strong binding with one nation. Then we need to have more decentralization in the structure. We need to go step by step, we can't achieve the best possible model in just 12 months. What we need to do is work in the correct direction. SJ: Maybe one solution could be to change the organization if ICANN. For instance the board structure could be modified, leaving some room for GAC people for example, having people from government level on the Board, or making more room for the governments.

[ 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