[governance] US Congrerss & JPA

[Lee W McKnight]

Milton,

You missed my conditional 'kind of' phrase; the committee that votes on DoC budgets can make life 'kind of' difficult for DoC, whether that is in line with Obama policy or not; and irrespective of ICANN's own preferences and policies, and without passing or even voting on a law.Other than those including funding for future DoC budgets : ). 

But yes of course DoC need not do what the House energy cte's senior dems want re ICANN or anything else.

However, if I was a betting man I'd advise you it is a historically risky bet to go against Dingell and Markey and Boucher....getting at least Wolfgang's 3rd option.

Lee


________________________________________
From: Milton L Mueller
Sent: Sunday, August 09, 2009 6:04 PM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Lee W McKnight; "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang"
Subject: RE: [governance] US Congrerss & JPA

Actually, Lee, DoC does not have to do what Congress tells it to do unless Congress passes a law.

When it comes to "policy" - and at this stage ICANN is still "all policy" and "no law", Commerce Dept only has to do what the Obama admin tells it to do. If the Obama admin disagrees with the Waxman committee's instructions, and it could, it could take a path very different from the one suggested.

Still, this is a very bad sign. I'm going to do a more analytical blog on the IGP site as soon as I can.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Lee W McKnight [mailto:lmcknigh at syr.edu]
> Sent: Friday, August 07, 2009 12:15 PM
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang"
> Subject: RE: [governance] US Congrerss & JPA
>
> Wolfgang,
>
> Actually, DoC does kind of have to do what the House Committee on Energy
> and Commerce tells it do do; since that's their House oversight committee.
>
> But a letter from some members even senior members is not same thing as
> Committee hearings, pressure on agency budget etc, which Congressional
> committees can do to get what they want.
>
> I'm guessing 3) so all sides can claim victory.
>
> Lee
> ________________________________________
> From: "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" [wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-
> halle.de]
> Sent: Friday, August 07, 2009 8:56 AM
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
> Subject: AW: [governance] US Congrerss & JPA
>
> Avri:
> well of course DoC does not have to do what the House Committee on Energy
> and Commerce tells it to do. And of course ICANN would have to agree (that
> is the Board not the CEO). Don't know if they will.  what happens if they
> don't? And what is going to happen around the world as US insists that the
> DNS is theirs, all theirs?
>
>
> Wolfgang:
>
> IMHO there are a number of options with "ifs" until September 30 and
> beyond:
>
> 1. DoC/ICANN agrees along the lines proposed by the congressional
> committee
> In this case there three possible consequences:
> a. it is seen as so unimportant that after some days of controversial
> discussion the rest of the world will accept it.
> b. there is a growing struggle within the ICANN community which could
> paralyze ICANN for the years ahead
> c. there are counterproposals for alternative ICANNs which will lead to a
> diversification/balkanization/renationalisation of the global Internet. In
> this case ICANN - if it continues to get the money - will continue to
> exist or - if the money does not flow - will disappear (or paid by US
> taxpayers money).
>
> 2. DoC/ICANN disagrees with the congressional recommendation
> This could lead to a very difficult debate, first of all within the US and
> for the Obama Administration. It would get support from the EU and other
> nations (including President Medwejew and the Chinese government). However
> it would be not enough to say "No" to the US Congress, it would need also
> an answer to the "How"-question.
>
> 3. DoC/ICANN tries to find a "middle of the road" compromise
> Here we could see a "creative innovation" which would on the one hand feed
> the illusion that ICANN remains on its road to an accountable but
> independent stewart of the global Internet community but would on the
> other hand strengthen the existing links with the US and its government
> (headquartered in California, IANA contract, USG in the GAC). This could
> be done in a "Statement of Intent" (SOI) which would substitute the JPA.
> Such a SOI could be signed by both sides with the provision to examine it
> after five years.
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance