[discuss] Thoughts welcome on proposed Netmundial submission

Shatan, Gregory S. GShatan at ReedSmith.com
Mon Mar 3 18:27:56 UTC 2014

Roland makes a very important point -- ICANN may not always win the IANA contract.  Indeed, in 2012 there was a hiccup where the NTIA found ICANN unsuitable and (briefly) pulled the RFP.  So, perhaps the more likely scenario is the IANA function taking place without ICANN, rather than the IANA function taking place the US government.

This leads to what I consider a higher-level issue lurking behind these IANA discussions.  As the party putting out the IANA contract, the NTIA must believe that the NTIA possesses the right and ability to perform the IANA functions (and by extension the US Government).  Therefore, unless the US cedes control of the IANA functions to a third party, or there is some sort of Internet coup, the IANA functions lie with the US government.  Now it might be possible that the US would be willing to cede control of the IANA functions under certain circumstances, but I have no idea what those circumstances would be.  Without the US's cooperation in transferring IANA functions (or some other plan to "take" the IANA functions from the USG), all of the stakeholder-side, "ICANN-side," user-side or even government-side [other than US] planning to transfer the IANA function seems like an exercise in futility.

Greg Shatan

-----Original Message-----
From: discuss-bounces at 1net.org [mailto:discuss-bounces at 1net.org] On Behalf Of Roland Perry
Sent: Monday, March 03, 2014 10:19 AM
To: discuss at 1net.org
Subject: Re: [discuss] Thoughts welcome on proposed Netmundial submission

In message <B962D591-9434-4DF7-BF2A-1EC933662191 at chambers.gen.nz>, at
23:41:51 on Sun, 2 Mar 2014, Peter Dengate Thrush <barrister at chambers.gen.nz> writes

>IANA functions do not have a separate entity - they are are a set of
>functions performed already by ICANN.
>That means they are already a function under the auspices of ICANN.
>THE issue in play is that ICANN performs these functions under a
>contract from the USG

But only because ICANN won the contract (each time so far). It should not be taken for granted that they always will.
Roland Perry

discuss mailing list
discuss at 1net.org

                                                                * * *

This E-mail, along with any attachments, is considered
confidential and may well be legally privileged. If you have received it in
error, you are on notice of its status. Please notify us immediately by reply
e-mail and then delete this message from your system. Please do not copy it or
use it for any purposes, or disclose its contents to any other
person. Thank you for your cooperation.

                                                                * * *

To ensure compliance with Treasury Department regulations, we
inform you that, unless otherwise indicated in writing, any U.S. Federal tax
advice contained in this communication  (including any attachments) is not
intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (1)
avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or applicable state
and local provisions or (2) promoting, marketing or recommending to another
party any tax-related matters addressed herein.
                                                                        Disclaimer Version RS.US.20.10.00

More information about the discuss mailing list