Public Comments on IANA proposal

[Seun Ojedeji]

Hi JJ,

To the best of my knowledge, PRF (which is now Independent review function
(IRF)) and CSC are not meant to be legal entities and I don't think it's
ever been suggested as such. That said, I think the CWG discussed the issue
of jurisdiction extensively and determined that it may not be worth
pursuing in this transition.

Personally, I don't think moving the entities to other jurisdiction is as
important as ensuring there is adequate community o involvement/oversight
in IANA operations and if that can be achieved within current jurisdiction
then I think we would be good.

Ofcourse I understating there may be more devil in the details than I may
be thinking ;-)

Regards

sent from Google nexus 4
kindly excuse brevity and typos.
On 23 Apr 2015 17:15, "Subrenat, Jean-Jacques" <jjs at dyalog.net> wrote:

> Hello,
>
> in addition, I would point out another aspect which was mentioned by
> members of the community in the early stages of the CCWG and CWG, but which
> seems to have faded away: jurisdiction.
>
> Whatever legal construct is retained (wholly-owned subsidiary of ICANN or
> similar), there remains a fundamental issue: in all the scenarios currently
> envisaged, the PTI would be a US entity under California law, answerable to
> federal and State laws, and for that reason would remain under the ultimate
> supervision of US public authority (NTIA or another) and the attentive to
> the will of the US Congress.
>
> I am probably expressing a minority view, and it seems very unlikely that
> the current discussion would envisage making PTI a truly global entity,
> located in a jurisdiction outside the USA. But an alternative, no doubt
> more widely acceptable proposal, would be to create the two oversight
> bodies, PRF and CSC, in a non-US jurisdiction. Such a solution would allow
> the operational part to dwell in the US, while providing a truly global
> oversight under international law (say in Geneva), rather than only US and
> California law.
>
> Jean-Jacques Subrenat.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ----- Mail original -----
> De: "David Post" <david.g.post at GMAIL.COM>
> À: NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
> Envoyé: Jeudi 23 Avril 2015 17:27:27
> Objet: Re: Public Comments on IANA proposal
>
> Milton/All
>
> I'm sure this was talked about at length during the development of the
> proposal, but it does seem rather odd to me that "functional and legal
> separation" between the IANA naming functions and ICANN (which I agree is
> an important principle) has been implemented in this proposal by means of
> setting up a new corporation that is a wholly-owned subsidiary of ICANN's
> (with an ICANN-designated Board - sec III.A.i.b). Can you say a few words
> as to why you think that provides for the necessary independence? The PTI
> Board will be answerable to the ICANN Board, because ICANN is the only
> "member" of PTI - ??
>
> David
>
>
> The At 10:58 AM 4/23/2015, Milton L Mueller wrote:
>
>
> Dear NCSG-ers:
>
> The domain names part of the IANA transition is finally being formed. A
> draft proposal was released yesterday and it is open for public comment.
>
> In my view, this is a big win for accountability. By legally separating
> the IANA functions operator from ICANN, it will be easier to hold ICANN’s
> board and staff accountable for the policy making process, and easier to
> hold the post-transition IANA accountable for its performance of the IANA
> functions. Lines of responsibility will be more direct, and policy more
> clearly separated from implementation.
>
> The proposal also promotes accountability by creating a periodic review
> process that could allow the names community to “fire” the existing IANA if
> there was great dissatisfaction with its performance. This enhances the
> accountability sought by the numbers and protocols communities as well as
> creating separability for the names community for the first time.
>
> The legal affiliate structure seems to have found the middle ground in the
> debate over ICANN’s role in the IANA functions. Although IANA will still be
> a subsidiary of ICANN, Inc., thus defusing any concerns about creating new
> organizations, it will have a separate board and a clearer line of
> demarcation between the politics of ICANN the policy maker and the
> technical coordination functions provided by the IANA functions operator.
>
> You can read the (very long) proposal here:
>
> https ://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-04-22-en
>
> You can comment on it here:
>
>
> https://www.icann.org/public-comments/cwg-stewardship-draft-proposal-2015-04-22-en
>
>
>
> *******************************
> David G Post - Senior Fellow, Open Technology Institute/New America
> Foundation
> blog (Volokh Conspiracy) http://www.washingtonpost.com/people/david-post
> book (Jefferson's Moose) http://tinyurl.com/c327w2n
> music http://tinyurl.com/davidpostmusic publications etc.
> http://www.davidpost.com
> *******************************
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20150423/2f4978bd/attachment.htm>