[governance] IANA contract to be opened for competitive bidding on November 4

[Ian Peter]

And why on earth does ICANN or anyone else like the root zone operators have
to follow their instructions anyway? Surely this can just become a function
of ICANN and forget about the silly authorisation from USG. It serves no
useful purpose now that ICANN is established as a representative structure
involving all stakeholders. Anachronistic and unneccessary.

ICANN might be well served by not bothering to apply.

Ian Peter



From: "Louis Pouzin (well)" <pouzin at well.com>
Reply-To: <governance at lists.cpsr.org>, "Louis Pouzin (well)"
<pouzin at well.com>
Date: Sun, 23 Oct 2011 18:32:14 +0200
To: <governance at lists.cpsr.org>
Subject: [governance] IANA contract to be opened for competitive bidding on
November 4

What international agreement allows the USG to make unilateral decisions on
the management of a common good ?

- - -

> On Oct 23, 2011, at 11:33 , Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
> 
>> >
>> > That's much worse:
>> >
>>> >> The Contractor shall perform the primary IANA functions of the
>>> >> Contract in the United States and possess and maintain, throughout
>>> >> the performance of this Contract, a physical address within the
>>> >> United States. The Contractor must be able to demonstrate that all
>>> >> primary operations and systems will remain within the Unites States
>>> >> (including the District of Columbia). The Government reserves the
>>> >> right to inspect the premises, systems, and processes of all
>>> >> security and operational components used for the performance of all
>>> >> Contract requirements and obligations.
>> >
>> > So, the future IANA will not even be able to, like ICANN, _pretend_ it
>> > is a bit internationalized.
- - - 
> 
> On Sun, Oct 23, 2011 at 17:03, Daniel Kalchev <daniel at digsys.bg> wrote:
 
> It does not need to pretend such things. After all this is a contract the USG
> will sign with whomever they chose and I guess by going trough their
> "standard" procurement procedures, they simply have no other choice.
> 
> What worries me is the reference to District of ColumbiaŠ perhaps that wording
> is required in order for certain US law to apply?
> 
> Daniel
 


____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20111024/7b039959/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t