<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<font face="Verdana"><br>
Avri and Ian,<br>
<br>
Will weigh in with more responses to your and other's comments
later on when I have a little more time, but just to say for the
present that;<br>
<br>
Firstly, IANA function that US may or may not hand over to someone
else, in one issue. Another one, the main one in the present
thread, is, whether IANA function is voluntary abandoned or not by
the US (your choice of what should happen), ICANN as a US non
profit would remain subject to all kinds of US laws vis a vis all
its activities and policies. As a part of the .xxx judgement for
instance, the courts can ask ICANN to revise all its domain name
policies to bring them in accordance with US anti trust and
possibly other laws (say IP related), in 'such a such', manner.
ICANN would have no option other than to do it right away. You
will agree that with the .xxxx case already been taken up, and its
basic tenability also been accepted by a court ruling, such an
eventuality is quite possible. This issue is at quite a different
level than that of who exercises IANA authority, which you address
in your emails. <br>
<br>
What is your response to this particular, i'd say, imminent,
problem? How is ICANN going to deal with it? With the .xxx case
already in the court, and many more expected in the present round
of new gtlds, should ICANN not already be ready for what is
certainly going to happen sooner or later?<br>
<br>
Secondly, if some kind of immunity for ICANN from US's domestic
law through some kind of international agreement is part of your
response to the above, and I may be being presumptuous in this
regard, please note that Milton and even Lee do not seem
particularly sanguine about it; not just about the likelihood that
it would happen, but even of its desirability. They seem to prefer
that ICANN remains subject to US laws, to ensure that some kind of
public interest control is kept over it. What is your position on
this?<br>
<br>
I mention this because evidently, even leaving my and Riaz's
position in this thread of discussion out, there is much less
general agreement on the way to go ahead, that may appear on the
surface. And the disagreement is not just on the time frames
involved or the path to follow, but, and this is most significant
to assert, also vis a vis the eventual desirable state of affairs.<br>
<br>
I understand that the mainstream view in the US, including but not
just limited to the 'establishment', is closer to that of Milton/
Lee's above view. We know that EU also rejects the possibility of
ICANN being subject to no kind of jurisdiction what so ever. These
facts will have to be kept in mind. <br>
<br>
Regards, parminder <br>
<br>
</font>On Wednesday 12 September 2012 04:02 AM, Ian Peter wrote:<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:CC75F928.288D1%25ian.peter@ianpeter.com"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Glad to see these comments by Lee and Avri. Here is my original proposition
I come back to my original position and perhaps the only one where we
might get some agreement and also even the possibility of some action. The
authorisation role is completely unnecessary, whether carried out by USA or
UN or whatever. Please do not transfer it to another body just remove it.
The authorisation is based on recommendations involving a set of very
consultative and exhaustive procedures. Once the ICANN processes recommend a
change after these consultations, let that be the final authorisation.
I can perceive a situation where USA might actually accept that proposition,
consistent with increasing independence of ICANN. I cant see a situation
where they transfer their authorisation function to any other body.
Ian Peter
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">From: Avri Doria <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:avri@ella.com"><avri@ella.com></a>
Reply-To: <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org"><governance@lists.igcaucus.org></a>, Avri Doria <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:avri@ella.com"><avri@ella.com></a>
Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2012 18:28:28 -0400
To: IGC <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org"><governance@lists.igcaucus.org></a>
Subject: Re: [governance] Big Porn v. Big Web Ruling Could Spell Trouble for
ICANN / was Re: new gTLDs
On 11 Sep 2012, at 17:33, Lee W McKnight wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">1) Free ICANN from hypothetical future USDOC/NTIA interference as Ian Peter
suggested. Which would also free ICANN from any other government mucking
around at that level, in a hypothetical future. Fine by me. Though I worry
ever so slightly that the latest example of ICANN's immaturity (oh yeah we
forgot to put in place a conflict of interest policy for folks about to
launch a new ICANN-created market) is not the last example of ICANN proving
in practice to be not really as grown up as ICANN, like most 14 year olds,
claims it is. Still, the proud parent USG will be more inclined to want to
let the organization grow up and graduate from needing a babysitter, than
accept other's suggestions that they would be better parents. Still we can
imagine...
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
This is basically the option I opt for.
First work to get ICANN to grow up and deserve to move out of the house.
Then convince the parents and all the aunts and uncles that it is time for
ICANN to move out on the NTIA house because they are gown-up and have a viable
life plan.
I bet that if this state is reached, NTIA would even help. Just a guess, but
I'd bet.
But first we ICANN folks (Staff, Board and Volunteers) gotta get a shit
together and grow up.
And start working on its life plan.
I think progress is being made, but is it as good as we would like of course
not.
More time and participation is needed.
I beleive it can happen.
In fact I expect that it eventually will.
I just have no idea how long eventually will take.
avri
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org">governance@lists.igcaucus.org</a>
To be removed from the list, visit:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing">http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing</a>
For all other list information and functions, see:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance">http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance</a>
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.igcaucus.org/">http://www.igcaucus.org/</a>
Translate this email: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://translate.google.com/translate_t">http://translate.google.com/translate_t</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>