[discuss] discuss Digest, Vol 4, Issue 145

Avri Doria avri at acm.org
Sun Mar 16 20:45:35 UTC 2014


On 16-Mar-14 16:23, Phil Corwin wrote:

>
> But what legal regime would you replace US law with? If there is no
> applicable body of law for ICANN then it is above the law and
> litigation-proof, and as a party interacting with private sector
> registries and registrars the potential for litigation enforces one
> type of accountability. Likewise, those contracted parties must know
> what body of law will interpret and enforce those contracts.

The legal regime I personally look for is for IANA not ICANN.  ICANN as 
a policy making making body remaining under US jurisdiction is not as 
big an issue for me, if it is not controlling the administrative 
function.  I think over time, ICANN itself will globalize and figure out 
how to use contract based 'regulation' over registries and registrars in 
an manner that fits with multiple legal regimes. Hope they get there 
soon for the sake of EU based registrars, but that is a subject for 
another list.

As for IANA, I favor a mesh of MOUs with the clients (ICANN, IETF, Root 
Server Operators, RIRs, ...) and Host country agreements with several 
nations known for protecting data rights, with oversight by a 
Multistakeholder panel of IANA Stewards.

avri







More information about the discuss mailing list