[discuss] Thoughts welcome on proposed Netmundial submission

McTim mctimconsulting at gmail.com
Mon Mar 3 22:55:19 UTC 2014


Have you read the IGP proposal that came out today?


On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 1:27 PM, Shatan, Gregory S. <GShatan at reedsmith.com>wrote:

> 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
> http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>                                                                 * * *
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> discuss mailing list
> discuss at 1net.org
> http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://1net-mail.1net.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20140303/e50de068/attachment.html>

More information about the discuss mailing list