[discuss] Interesting article
dvburk at gmail.com
Thu Jan 16 01:18:33 UTC 2014
On 16 Jan 2014, at 01:52, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 15/01/2014 04:05, Dominique Lacroix wrote:
>> Sorry Jorge, but we must be clear for all the people who try to understand:
>> Icann IS IN CHARGE of Iana, and for several years!
>> See: http://www.ntia.doc.gov/page/iana-functions-purchase-order
> That is a partial story. Actually the NTIA contract is
> redundant. The IETF MoU is the instrument by which the
> technical community delegated the IANA function to ICANN.
> From a multi-stakeholder or technical viewpoint, nothing
> would change if the NTIA contract was cancelled today.
And this will not solved the key issue - risks of potential host country legislative interventions which seems for me as a core
point of all IG discussions.
It is not only ICANN/IANA problem - but also related to the most I* organizations.
>> Without Iana contract, Icann would not be a political issue.
> Without the _NTIA_ contract, I agree.
> On 16/01/2014 04:05, Peter Dengate Thrush wrote:
>> The PSC final recommendation was that ICANN look at the international not for profit status available under Swiss law.
> Which was of course one of the more attractive options
> rejected in 1998. If I could have three wishes, the first
> two would be unconditional cancellation of the NTIA
> contract and relocation of ICANN's seat to Geneva.
> discuss mailing list
> discuss at 1net.org
More information about the discuss