[discuss] discuss Digest, Vol 3, Issue 67

Phil Corwin psc at vlaw-dc.com
Mon Feb 17 16:13:29 UTC 2014

On the subject of whether the IANA contract/root zone authority is US government property, and whether DOC/NTIA has independent authority to transfer or would require authorizing legislation, see http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/OGC-00-33R 

" (11) it is uncertain whether transferring control would also include transfer of government property to a private entity; (12) to the extent that transition of the management control to a private entity would involve the transfer of government property, it is unclear if Commerce has the requisite authority to effect such a transfer"

While a 2000 study, DOC stated at that time that the answer would require extensive legal analysis it had not conducted -- and still has not to this day, so far as I am aware.

So the answer is that the IANA contract may require validating legislative approval prior to transfer to any other entity, be it a new multistakeholder or multilateral entity or ICANN itself, and that regardless of the answer to that legal inquiry NTIA might want at least informal Congressional sanctioning before embarking on what could be a very controversial divestiture.

Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal
Virtualaw LLC
1155 F Street, NW
Suite 1050
Washington, DC 20004

Twitter: @VlawDC
"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey

-----Original Message-----
From: discuss-bounces at 1net.org [mailto:discuss-bounces at 1net.org] On Behalf Of discuss-request at 1net.org
Sent: Monday, February 17, 2014 11:01 AM
To: discuss at 1net.org
Subject: discuss Digest, Vol 3, Issue 67

Send discuss mailing list submissions to
	discuss at 1net.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
	discuss-request at 1net.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
	discuss-owner at 1net.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of discuss digest..."

Today's Topics:

   1. Re: Possible approaches to solving "problem no. 1"
      (Milton L Mueller)
   2. Re: Fwd:  Possible approaches to solving "problem no. 1"
      (Marilyn Cade)
   3. Re: Possible approaches to solving "problem no. 1" (John Curran)
   4. Re: Possible approaches to solving "problem no. 1"
      (Michel Gauthier)
   5. Re: Possible approaches to solving "problem no. 1"
      (Michel Gauthier)


Message: 1
Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2014 13:48:51 +0000
From: Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu>
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com>
Cc: "discuss at 1net.org List" <discuss at 1net.org>
Subject: Re: [discuss] Possible approaches to solving "problem no. 1"
Message-ID: <124498448cb5472f8e8405c0da3f049d at EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

-----Original Message-----
From: Brian E Carpenter [mailto:brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com] 

>There is no need to delegate anything new to ICANN. The global IANA 
>function was delegated to them already, 14 years ago (with a six months 
>notice clause). That's why I keep banging on about simply switching off 
>the NTIA contract - it's a necessary and sufficient step.

We agree on this, as you'll see when we release the IGP proposal for the Brazil meeting.

>Moving ICANN to a more neutral jurisdiction is a separable step, but should also be on the agenda.

We also agree regarding its separability. It is very important to keep those two changes on separate tracks, as the first one (ending the special US control of IANA) is relatively simple and the latter (altering ICANN's incorporation, jurisdiction and/or accountability mechanisms, is very complex and is likely to be a lengthy process.  


Message: 2
Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2014 15:57:44 +0100
From: Marilyn Cade <marilynscade at hotmail.com>
To: Mike Roberts <mmr at darwin.ptvy.ca.us>
Cc: "discuss at 1net.org List" <discuss at 1net.org>
Subject: Re: [discuss] Fwd:  Possible approaches to solving "problem
	no. 1"
Message-ID: <BAY406-EAS32963351E7A1A5AC6008211D3990 at phx.gbl>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

Thanks, Mike, for your comments below. I want to raise a concern that at least I have that we need to address within ICANN itself.  

There is a lot of discussion of external forcing of change, and I will work with others on this list and in various fora to consider all the events, meetings, and discussions outside of ICANN.
However, those within ICANN need to be working within ICANN itself on improvements to ICANN accountability mechanisms.  

Today, ICANN's accountability mechanisms are just work in progress, and the ATRT1 and 2 both acknowledged the urgency of truly independent accountability mechanisms.

I am not looking for external forcing of such improvements and changes, but work within the ICANN COMMUNITY, as a bottom up process. 

I see a range of ideas from folks being debated, or at least brainstormed about related to IANA.

I see ideas about: 
-a new multilateral organization
-a new multilateral organization composed of multiple governments -some who think that a form of opinion /multistakeholder participatory engagement is an acceptable approach to make highly technical decisions that affect stability and security of one of the world's important connectivity/resources -- the Internet. 

Within ICANN's community/Stakeholders, there is an opportunity to contribute to the way that we improve and strengthen ICANN from within. 

Accountability mechanisms within ICANN, and about ICANN's decisions are a baseline requirement, it seems to me, and while there are a plethora of Strat Panels funded by ICANN to bring in ideas, still the work of improving, strengthening, and fixing gaps lies with the ICANN community. 

Sent from my iPad

> On Feb 13, 2014, at 10:44 PM, "Mike Roberts" <mmr at darwin.ptvy.ca.us> wrote:
>> Ian Peter
>> PS I would also suggest that ICANN utilise an outside independent consultancy based outside of the USA to conduct this study and consult all stakeholders and prepare the directions paper, in the interests of expediency and efficiency.
> It appears that there is beginning to emerge a way forward.
> However much many of us might dislike it, the fact is that the U.S. Congress and senior govt ministries hold trump cards if a proposal emerges that offends them.  In the present atmosphere of worldwide terrorist attacks and threats, they are easily offended.
> Although some might favor a proposal that dwells on the many deficiencies of USG behavior toward ICANN and IANA, it would be much more productive to have one that results in the active engagement of the U.S. in making it happen, rather than being consigned to the large dustbin of schemes that attracted political disfavor. The wording of Ian's PS above is the type of thing that attracts "disfavor."
> One additional point to consider in constructing a new arrangement is that Verisign operates the master root server, from which all the updates are distributed to other servers, under a contractual cooperative agreement that is entirely separate from USG links to ICANN.  It would not accomplish much in the way of global IG MS if we got the IANA changes, but the Department of Commerce and Verisign continued, as they do today, to have a choke hold on updates to the A server.
> - Mike
> _______________________________________________
> discuss mailing list
> discuss at 1net.org
> http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://1net-mail.1net.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20140217/5dcb785b/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
discuss mailing list
discuss at 1net.org


Message: 3
Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2014 10:25:42 -0500
From: John Curran <jcurran at istaff.org>
To: Michel Gauthier <mg at telepresse.com>
Cc: "discuss at 1net.org List" <discuss at 1net.org>
Subject: Re: [discuss] Possible approaches to solving "problem no. 1"
Message-ID: <95A83F7C-9C45-4F3D-BF23-64D65DC35C26 at istaff.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

On Feb 16, 2014, at 8:20 PM, Michel Gauthier <mg at telepresse.com> wrote:

> I understand that the USG position is that the root is an US property. 

Michel - 
 Could you provide a reference please from which you base this position?


Disclaimer: My views alone - feel free to use, abuse, or discard as desired.


Message: 4
Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2014 16:45:59 +0100
From: Michel Gauthier <mg at telepresse.com>
To: Steve Crocker <steve at shinkuro.com>,Michel Gauthier
	<mg at telepresse.com>
Cc: discuss at 1net.org
Subject: Re: [discuss] Possible approaches to solving "problem no. 1"
Message-ID: <mailman.54.1392652841.11625.discuss at 1net.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed

At 13:20 17/02/2014, Steve Crocker wrote:
>I am not advocating new additions to 3166, and if there are additions 
>to 3166 that are not in keeping with its original framework, the 
>appearance of a code in the 3166 table may not be enough to justify the 
>allocation of a new ccTLD.

This is what I am saying: VGNICs can document them if EZOP uses ISO
3166 as their referent to produce HomeRoots. This might lead to competition if some people dedicate a class to include societalTLDs.

This is not my responsibility, but I suppose it would be better if ISO 3166 was keeping concentrating the internet codes rather than another international agency like ITU (mobile related information) or UNESCO or a private business organization like ICC or GS1, etc. i.e. 
maintenance agencies where ICANN is not a member?

The FCC/Tymnet-Postel-ICANN solution has hold well until now. May be time to adapt ICP-1 http://www.icann.org/en/resources/cctlds/delegation
to consider Keith's remarks and the probable emergence of VGNs and the HomeRoot experimentation.


>On Feb 17, 2014, at 7:14 AM, Michel Gauthier <mg at telepresse.com> wrote:
> > At 02:47 17/02/2014, Steve Crocker wrote:
> >> I think the only way to accomplish what you have in mind is to
> to work within the ICANN framework to bring RFC 1591 ideas into to the 
> GNSO policy framework.  I have no idea whether this might be feasible.
> >
> > I understand this is where VGNICs bring an incentive?
> >
> > M G


Message: 5
Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2014 16:59:04 +0100
From: Michel Gauthier <mg at telepresse.com>
To: Keith Davidson <keith at internetnz.net.nz>,	Steve Crocker
	<steve at shinkuro.com>
Cc: discuss at 1net.org
Subject: Re: [discuss] Possible approaches to solving "problem no. 1"
Message-ID: <mailman.55.1392652841.11625.discuss at 1net.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed

This would only call for ISO 3166

1) issuing multicodes in the nationally acknowldged normative languages
2) ony use IDNA code points
3) for countries, territories, administrative regions
4) and its list of acknowledged normative languages.

This is where a VGNIC MS governance (enhanced cooperation) could bring a response: ICANN is a member of the ISO 3166/MA: it could represent the VGNICs community there. One likely VGNIC candidate is
GS1 which has close ties with Fadi Chehade. This might help?

Anyway, I understand that the EZOP designers will need such a country,  administrative, language and namespace class table?


At 02:56 17/02/2014, Keith Davidson wrote:
>From: Keith Davidson <keith at internetnz.net.nz>
>To: Steve Crocker <steve at shinkuro.com>
>Cc: discuss at 1net.org
>Subject: Re: [discuss] Possible approaches to solving "problem no. 1"
>On 17/02/2014 2:47 p.m., Steve Crocker wrote:
>>>Actually the discussion does raise some interesting aspects, 
>>>particularly in the new gTLD environment. There are a good many ...
>>Meanwhile, additional ccTLDs have been created for IDN-ccTLDs.  That's 
>>probably not exactly what you have in mind, but it touches on your 
>Agreed, that the IDN ccTLDs created on the fasttrack were subject to 
>the RFC1591 requirements only, considerably simpler / cheaper / quicker 
>than the ICANN gTLD process. Which does prove that ICANN can accept new 
>non-ISO-3166 ccTLD applications (and RFC1591 determined that the 
>ISO-3166 list was the one to be used for delegations of ccTLDs). Which 
>leads the way to the interesting possibility that aspiring gTLDs could 
>use RFC1591 instead of the ICANN gTLD process - which might be relevant 
>to territories, regions or sub-regions that are not recognised on 
>ISO-3166. For example, the Oceania region might apply for .oceania...


discuss mailing list
discuss at 1net.org

End of discuss Digest, Vol 3, Issue 67

More information about the discuss mailing list