[discuss] FW: USG- IANA relationship
Brian E Carpenter
brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com
Sat Jan 18 00:05:26 UTC 2014
On 17/01/2014 15:55, Milton L Mueller wrote:
> Changing the header on this thread (long overdue). However interesting the originally referenced article was, it seems to have outlived its moment.
> -----Original Message-----
>>> 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?
> Even less practical. ICANN has contracts with a host of multinational businesses implicating billions of dollars; it can't just dissolve itself and reincorporate somewhere else.
They'd certainly have to re-assign those contracts to the new entity. They
might even have to leave a stub entity in California. But I will take a lot of
convincing that it couldn't be done if there was a will to do it.
On 18/01/2014 04:37, Peter Dengate Thrush wrote:
> 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,
I am not a lawyer, and Peter is, so I won't attempt to argue points
of law. I haven't really understood why ICANN felt it necessary
to sign the more recent contract renewals. In any case I'm not sure
that the "understanding" about the root being controlled in the USA
is going to be generally understood much longer.
More information about the discuss