[discuss] USG- IANA relationship (was: Interesting article)
Milton L Mueller
mueller at syr.edu
Wed Jan 22 15:21:53 UTC 2014
Not sure I understand your point here, Alejandro; "the full ICANN architecture" in no way exempts any actor (NRO, ICANN itself) from antitrust liability. Indeed, the White Paper explicitly says that ICANN _is_ subject to antitrust. As an AC member of ARIN, I violate no confidences by saying that its counsel pays careful attention to the antitrust implications of certain procedures and actions. So I am not understanding how a stand-alone NRO would affect this equation, but again I am not sure I understand what you are saying.
From: discuss-bounces at 1net.org [mailto:discuss-bounces at 1net.org] On Behalf Of Alejandro Pisanty
this is indeed a scenario that has been worked out for several cycles over the years.
One of the most exciting parts is that a stand-alone NRO without the full ICANN architecture would be subject to intense anti-trust inspection in the US or Europe and most likely found at fault. This scenario underlines the importance of a fully architected ICANN for all its players and, most importantly, for its ability to be a competent steward caring for these participants' interests and for the principles held dear by a global population of non- or indirect participants.
Understanding of this angle is one of the key boundary conditions for solving George Sadowsky's formulation of the successive layers of the problem.
On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 10:24 PM, John Curran <jcurran at arin.net<mailto:jcurran at arin.net>> wrote:
On Jan 21, 2014, at 5:46 PM, Pranesh Prakash <pranesh at cis-india.org<mailto:pranesh at cis-india.org>> wrote:
> Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu<mailto:mueller at syr.edu>> [2014-01-17 02:55:32 +0000]:
>> 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.
> That's a very interesting point. Wouldn't this problem also have been created had the NTIA decided that they were going to award the IANA contract to a body other than ICANN? How would it have been resolved then?
_In theory_, ICANN's role of being the Internet identifier coordination body,
and more specifically - the DNS Policy Development organization, is distinct
from ICANN's registry administration role (performed via the IANA function
contract with NTIA and MOU with the IAB/IETF [RFC 2860]) I'll be the first
to admit that this distinction can be very difficult to discern at times due
to the adjacency of the various roles that has occurred over the years.
Back during the resolictation of the IANA function contract, I was asked what
would happen if the contract were awarded to another party. Presuming (for
sake of argument) that the IETF had been in concurrence, it would have simply
meant that some other organization was maintaining the records of what is in
each of the various IP, protocol, and DNS registries. The policy that the new
contract recipient would use would likely have remained the NRO/ASO for IP
global address policy, the IETF for protocol parameter registries, and ICANN
for DNS root zone. ICANN's relations with the various DNS registrars and
registries may not have changed in the least, as the IANA functions are
predominantly administrative and technical in nature based on policies
developed by others.
In any case, it would have been a _very_ exciting time.
Disclaimer: My views alone. Do not try this at home; some steps have been
omitted for purpose of explanation.
discuss mailing list
discuss at 1net.org<mailto:discuss at 1net.org>
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dr. Alejandro Pisanty
Facultad de Química UNAM
Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico
+52-1-5541444475 FROM ABROAD
+525541444475 DESDE MÉXICO SMS +525541444475
Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614
---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the discuss