[discuss] discuss Digest, Vol 3, Issue 67

[Nigel Hickson]

Good evening 

Just to be clear; I did not say this at all.

Nigel 


On 2/17/14 6:27 PM, "Phil Corwin" <psc at vlaw-dc.com> wrote:

>Well that's a conjecture that even senior ICANN officials have made
>publicly within the past few days---
>
>Asked if it's practical for ICANN and the IANA functions to disentangle
>themselves from the U.S., [ICANN Vice President-Europe Nigel] Hickson
>said the U.S. Congress could probably pass legislation to change the
>relationship, but it would have to be done in a way that satisfies both
>political parties.
>-- "European Commission Policy Statement Envisions Less U.S. Influence in
>Internet Governance"; Washington Internet Daily, February 13, 2014
>
>Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal
>Virtualaw LLC
>1155 F Street, NW
>Suite 1050
>Washington, DC 20004
>202-559-8597/Direct
>202-559-8750/Fax
>202-255-6172/cell
>
>Twitter: @VlawDC
> 
>"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: John Curran [mailto:jcurran at istaff.org]
>Sent: Monday, February 17, 2014 12:14 PM
>To: Phil Corwin
>Cc: discuss at 1net.org
>Subject: Re: [discuss] discuss Digest, Vol 3, Issue 67
>
>On Feb 17, 2014, at 11:13 AM, Phil Corwin <psc at vlaw-dc.com> wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
>That was my understanding as well - based on all information available,
>the question remains open at this time.
>
>> 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,
>
>Indeed - it _may_ require validating legislative approval, or it _may
>not_ require validating legislative approval.
>
>> 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.
>
>There is a vast difference between informal congressional consultation
>and requiring authorizing legislation; assertions that it would require
>the latter are not backed in evidence, i.e. conjecture at this time.
>
>/John
>
>Disclaimers: My views alone. No DNS zone files were harmed in preparing
>this email.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>-----
>No virus found in this message.
>Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
>Version: 2013.0.3462 / Virus Database: 3697/7069 - Release Date: 02/06/14
>Internal Virus Database is out of date.
>
>_______________________________________________
>discuss mailing list
>discuss at 1net.org
>http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 5027 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://1net-mail.1net.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20140217/e11522f4/smime.p7s>