<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
But the old argument on any change was, well you have to talk to
IANA about that, or Verisign, or ccTLDs or RIRs etc etc, and you
have to have money and skills etc (funny libertarian arguments in
support of de facto 'oligopolies' or 'monopolies').<br>
<br>
Before it was divide and rule. Now it is fragment and dominate. <br>
<br>
And predictably we will hear about the sanctity of contracts. But
after robosigning (where banks got the loot kicking poor folk out of
their homes on FRAUDULENT documents while the USG did little about
it, and even when they did they acted to protect the banks) this
argument will not hold water.<br>
<br>
Apologies, we have been here before so I am just running ahead of
script so that we can deal with new issues rather than tread the
same ground with 'evolved single rooters'... time to up the game...
<br>
<br>
Riaz<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 2013/06/12 12:09 PM, parminder
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:51B83ABC.6090701@itforchange.net" type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<br>
<font face="Verdana">Of course, moving ICANN oversight away from
unilateral control of the US is to move the root authorisation</font>
power away, and thus to move the IANA contract granting power, to
an international system... It is not so important to move ICANN
physically out of the US, where it can stay under a host country
agreement, which applies to international organisations.... <br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On Wednesday 12 June 2013 02:48 AM,
Avri Doria wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:1DD1F5EC-E634-47B7-BFBD-772EC55A0CC3@ella.com"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">On 11 Jun 2013, at 15:47, Roland Perry wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">The main thing keeping ICANN in the USA, apart from the possibility of it being a friendly tax and employee recruitment[1] environment, is the need for them to be based in the USA in order to hold the IANA contract.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
doesn't the contractual nature of all of their relationships sort of keep them in the US as well. If they provide a regulatory function via contract, don't they need to be were the contracts are?
or at least keep part of it where the contracts are: e,g, the new GDD
avri
GDD - generic domains division
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>