[discuss] Interesting article

Fri Jan 17 15:37:11 UTC 2014

Brian
The issue is the USG grip via its contract, and it's reluctance to release, coupled with the political issue- no official or Administration wants to be known as the one that 'Lost the Internet' for the USA.

The understanding of the Internet and it's control mechanisms by US politicians has improved- it was particularly noticeable in final hearings in the new gTLD programme that senators appreciated that the US Department of Commerce was not able to give ICANN instructions. 

That's a material change in understanding from 3-4 years ago, and reflects the reality of the ending of the JPA.

However, it's sufficiently understood that control over root access is maintained in the USA via the contract, and ICANN undertakings via the Affirmation if commitments.

Any changes made by ICANN to its structure or location are irrelevant to that view,

Regards

Peter Dengate Thrush

> On 16/01/2014, at 4:26 pm, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> On 17/01/2014 09:04, Peter Dengate Thrush wrote:
>>> On 17/01/2014, at 8:22 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>>> 
>>> Peter,
>> snip
>> 
>>>>> From a multi-stakeholder or technical viewpoint, nothing
>>>>> would change if the NTIA contract was cancelled today.
>>>> I don't understand your point here at all.
>>>> If the NTIA contract with ICANN to perform the IANA functions were to be cancelled, presumably another entity would have to be appointed.
>>> Why? ICANN would simply continue to do them. There would be no
>>> vacuum, no financial issue. ICANN would be running independently.
>>> That's what should have happened in 1998, but Magaziner and
>>> the DoC simply couldn't see it.
>> 
>> Thanks - I thought you were talking about a practical reality for today!
>> 
>> Let me know how you propose to sell that idea to the NTIA, and how they would then explain that to Congress.
> 
> This actually wouldn't matter if ICANN dissolved itself as a US Corporation,
> would it?
> 
>   Brian