[discuss] discuss Digest, Vol 4, Issue 145

[Steve Crocker]

On Mar 16, 2014, at 5:32 PM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> 
> 
> On 16-Mar-14 16:56, Steve Crocker wrote:
>> 
>> On Mar 16, 2014, at 4:45 PM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:
>> 
>>> 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,
>> 
>> You’re specifying a solution.
> 
> Yes, i was asked for a possible solution so I gave one.  The answer was
> given more to show that a solution was possible, than to start working
> on solutions prematurely.
> 
> I had previously, as you requested, stated a principle.  As far as I
> could tell, the question stemmed from thinking about the principle I
> offered and what it might mean in real life.
> 
> I understand you do not agree with this principle. Nonetheless I persist in believing it is a principle worthy of extended discussion but the wider community.
> 
>> What’s the problem?
> 
> The problem is that strict functional separation cannot be done in ICANN
> as currently constituted.  It is contrary to its organizational
> structure and to the philosophy of integrating policy with
> implementation, which I also support.
> 
> So if you accept the principle of strict functional separation, between
> policy and administration of the critical IANA resource, we have an
> implementation problem.
> 
> For you list of issues, it looks like we have some work to do on defining processes for dealing with such issues while maintining a strict wall between ICANN's policy machinations and the operation of IANA.
> 
>>> There is also the issue of ICANN being subject to US law.  This
>>> remains a problem if ICANN plans to keep the administrative
>>> function after transition.
>> 
>> The question has already been asked and I’ll ask again.  What is the
>> specific problem about being subject to US law?  As a general matter,
>> rule of law is usually considered one of the U.S.’s very strongest
>> qualities.
>> 
> 
> This has been answered many times by many people, but I will answer yet again.  US law on occasion restricts who a company does business with. Losing NTIA oversight does not change that.  IANA should not be subject to such vagaries of national law.

If you’re referring to OFAC, there are similar mechanisms in every jurisdiction.  There is no obviously “completely safe” place anywhere on earth.  In practice, ICANN has navigated this area extremely well.

> Beyond that, US law allows infractions of rights against the privacy etc of data and pervasive monitoring that may not be appropriate for the future of IANA and which are not consistent with other rule of law jurisdictions.