[CCWG-ACCT] [Acct-Legal] Objection (Re: Nomcom as a UA - legal question)
James Gannon
james at cyberinvasion.net
Tue Apr 28 10:36:36 UTC 2015
Cooperative agreement 1993:
https://archive.icann.org/en/nsi/coopagmt-01jan93.htm
Amendments:
http://www.ntia.doc.gov/page/verisign-cooperative-agreement
-James
On 28/04/2015 11:31, "Dr Eberhard Lisse" <el at lisse.NA> wrote:
>Where do I find that agreement?
>
>el
>
>On 2015-04-26 20:50, Dr Eberhard W Lisse wrote:
>> Becky,
>>
>> thank you for your support.
>>
>> So, we DO need to find out what the basis is.
>>
>> el
>>
>> --
>> Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini
>>
>> On Apr 26, 2015, at 19:35, Burr, Becky <Becky.Burr at neustar.biz
>> <mailto:Becky.Burr at neustar.biz>> wrote:
>>
>>> Eberhard,
>>>
>>> The answer to your question re USG “claim” to the root is – as I’m
>>> sure you know – somewhat convoluted. Without jumping into the “what
>>> the IPC rep said and what the record reflects” controversy (about
>>> which I know nothing) here is my take on the situation.
>>>
>>> The USG entered into a “cooperative agreement" with Network Solutions
>>> in 1993, under which Network Solutions operated the authoritative
>>> root, and also provided both registry and registrar services to TLDs
>>> other than ccTLDs. Until he died in 1998, Jon Postel was in charge of
>>> IANA functions through a contract between the University of Southern
>>> California Information Sciences Institute and DARPA. As far as I
>>> know, during that period, Jon delegated ccTLDs and Network Solutions
>>> added them to the root at Jon’s direction. We have no record of the
>>> terms and conditions under which these delegations occurred prior to
>>> 1994, when RFC 1591 was issued.
>>>
>>> The Cooperative Agreement was somewhat ambiguous about “ownership” and
>>> “authority.” In 1993, when the Cooperative Agreement was signed,
>>> there were some 7500 registered domain names.
>>> https://www.nsf.gov/news/special_reports/cyber/internet.jsp. It is
>>> clear that the National Science Foundation had a right to a copy of
>>> the data base, but other rights were less clear. The situation was
>>> complicated by the fact that the IANA functions – so presumably the
>>> authority to modify the authoritative root – was performed by USC/ISI
>>> under a regular government procurement contract with DARPA. Did that
>>> mean DARPA had authority to control changes to the authoritative root?
>>> I don’t think anyone really knows. Maybe the answer lies in the
>>> Postel archives, which have not been made available by USC. And
>>> finally, it should be noted that throughout this period there were no
>>> formal agreements with the root server operators in the US and
>>> elsewhere (Japan, Sweden, UK as I recall). As a practical matter, it
>>> is the root server operators who determine which root is authoritative
>>> (as Jon once demonstrated). So, call the situation murky.
>>>
>>> In 1997, the Cooperative Agreement was transferred from the National
>>> Science Foundation to the Department of Commerce, and beginning that
>>> summer, the DOC conducted several public consultations about the
>>> future of DNS governance. In 1998, the DOC announced that it was
>>> prepared to recognize a representative, private-sector organization to
>>> manage the DNS. While the global community undertook to develop an
>>> appropriate government, in September of 1998, the Cooperative
>>> Agreement between Network Solutions and the DOC was set to expire. As
>>> part of the extension of that agreement, Network Solutions (which may
>>> have become Verisign by that time) agreed that it would not make
>>> changes to the authoritative root without the consent of the DOC.
>>> That agreement was intended to preserve the stability of the DNS
>>> during the transition, and to prevent Network Solutions from
>>> undermining the transition (not saying that it intended to do so, just
>>> a safeguard). The amendment 11 provision formally inserted the USG
>>> into DNS governance issues, but it was not the first time. For
>>> example, in connection with some litigation regarding the addition of
>>> new TLDs – in 1997 or early 1998 – USC/ISI and Network Solutions asked
>>> the DOC whether a large group of names should be added at the behest
>>> of a particular private party, and the DOC instructed USC and NetSol
>>> that they should not be added, particularly in light of the
>>> consultations then underway.
>>>
>>> Your question about whether or not the USG has a basis for its “claim”
>>> of authority over the root is a bit metaphysical. The USC clearly has
>>> the right to prevent Verisign from modifying the authoritative root.
>>> Whether or not it had the right before Amendment 11, Verisign gave
>>> the DOC that right by contract in that amendment. The USG’s authority
>>> to determine which root serves as the authoritative root and who
>>> operates that root is not spelled out in black and white anywhere that
>>> I know of – it is something that happened along the way, a byproduct
>>> of contract and the passage of time, and certainly not an inherently
>>> governmental function. To the extent there ever was “property” -
>>> e.g., in the form of USG funded root server hardware, for example, I
>>> am confident that such property is long past its useful life and no
>>> longer in service.
>>>
>>> What we know for sure is that Verisign operates the authoritative root
>>> and the DOC has the contractual authority to tell Verisign not to make
>>> a change to the root. That right reflects a contractual agreement
>>> between two parties, and does not seem to me to be a delegation of
>>> authority over USG “property.” Accordingly, I think the USG has the
>>> right to transfer authority for changes to the root in the manner
>>> contemplated here. To be sure, this transfer was in fact contemplated
>>> expressly in Amendment 11, when the DOC and Verisign agreed that the
>>> USG had the right to direct Verisign to follow the directions
>>> of “Newco” (which subsequently became ICANN).
>>>
>>> Of course, I’m sure you and I could come up with all kinds of
>>> interesting scenarios that would complicate this process.
>>>
>>> B
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> J. Beckwith Burr
>>>
>>> *Neustar, Inc. /* Deputy General Counsel and Chief Privacy Officer
>>>
>>> 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20006
>>>
>>> Office: + 1.202.533.2932 Mobile:
>>> +1.202.352.6367 / becky.burr at neustar.biz
>>> <mailto:becky.burr at neustar.biz> / www.neustar.biz <http://www.neustar.biz>
>>>
>>>
>>> From: List for the work of CCWG-Accountability Legal SubTeam
>>> <ccwg-accountability5 at icann.org <mailto:ccwg-accountability5 at icann.org>>
>>> Reply-To: "ccwg-accountability5 at icann.org
>>> <mailto:ccwg-accountability5 at icann.org>"
>>> <ccwg-accountability5 at icann.org <mailto:ccwg-accountability5 at icann.org>>
>>> Date: Saturday, April 25, 2015 at 6:11 AM
>>> To: "ccwg-accountability5 at icann.org
>>> <mailto:ccwg-accountability5 at icann.org>"
>>> <ccwg-accountability5 at icann.org <mailto:ccwg-accountability5 at icann.org>>
>>> Cc: Lisse Eberhard <directors at omadhina.NET
>>> <mailto:directors at omadhina.NET>>, Accountability Community
>>> <accountability-cross-community at icann.org
>>> <mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org>>
>>> Subject: [Acct-Legal] Objection (Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Nomcom as a UA -
>>> legal question)
>>>
>>> I have about have it with the unappointed participant of a vested
>>> interest making decisions.
>>>
>>> Never mind that he just is not entitled to make the ones at hand.
>>> Under the Charter or in any other way! Technically this triggers
>>> billable hours, so even formally it may not withstand an audit.
>>>
>>> Yes, read it s objection, for the record.
>>>
>>> I repeat my demand for the question whether the USG has in fact a base
>>> for its "claim" (for the lack of a better word) to the root, and the
>>> consequences thereof (if it does not, we have an idea what this means
>>> already, if does, may it transfer it (an asset (of sorts)) in the
>>> manner proposed, and how does all of this affect (cc)TLDs (when
>>> looking at this in chronological batches).
>>>
>>> The absolute only reason I can see to ignore or avoid the question, is
>>> knowing or being concerned about the answer, but not having this done
>>> creates an accountability issue in itself.
>>>
>>>
>>> I do note, by the way, at last reading of my email the deafening
>>> silence about the conflict between the IPC lobbyist's statement about
>>> what he alleged as to have said in the Legal SubTeam meeting of
>>> 2015-04-08 and the transcript of what he actually did say.
>>>
>>> I have no issues with anyone representing anyone's interests and even
>>> as aggressively and flouting rules as Americans businesses are so
>>> admired for all over the world, by the way. If I had that kind of
>>> money I'd also get me one of these onto both CWG and CCWG and
>>> influence the outcome.
>>>
>>> Whatever it takes...
>>>
>>> el
>>> --
>>> Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini
>>>
>>> On Apr 25, 2015, at 03:50, List for the work of CCWG-Accountability
>>> Legal SubTeam <ccwg-accountability5 at icann.org
>>> <mailto:ccwg-accountability5 at icann.org>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Holly,
>>>>
>>>> Yes, please proceed to answer the questions posed in Avri's email.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks!
>>>>
>>>> Greg
>>>>
>>>> On Friday, April 24, 2015, List for the work of CCWG-Accountability
>>>> Legal SubTeam <ccwg-accountability5 at icann.org
>>>> <mailto:ccwg-accountability5 at icann.org>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Thanks Greg. I take it that the Legal SubTeam would like us to
>>>> add this to the list of questions we are answering. Holly
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Sent with Good (www.good.com
>>>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.good.com&d=AwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=RdybPy8TbR7c7h3IlR5bPcQCTJDS_jn3H1ou6QCMt2g&s=56zqe3hUK0XR7TPLW9twh6rUu596w9xw5hayp7ZefME&e=>)
>>>> **
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> *From:* ccwg-accountability5-bounces at icann.org
>>>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','ccwg-accountability5-bounces at icann.org');>
>>>> on behalf of List for the work of CCWG-Accountability Legal SubTeam
>>>> *Sent:* Friday, April 24, 2015 05:54:47 PM
>>>> *To:* Avri Doria; ccwg-accountability5 at icann.org
>>>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','ccwg-accountability5 at icann.org');>
>>>> *Cc:* accountability-cross-community at icann.org
>>>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','accountability-cross-community at icann.org');>
>>>> *Subject:* Re: [Acct-Legal] [CCWG-ACCT] Nomcom as a UA - legal
>>>> question
>>>>
>>>> Avri,
>>>>
>>>> I am forwarding your question to the Legal Sub Team list.
>>>>
>>>> Greg
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 6:51 PM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org
>>>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','avri at acm.org');>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> I am confused as to how this works. Please forgive my
>>>> questions. This has less to do with the proposal I made then
>>>> with trying to understand the nature of a UA. I had not
>>>> realized until yesterday that the membership model was as
>>>> popular as it has been defined to be. I had also not
>>>> realized that we were down to membership or designator model
>>>> as our only choices until today.
>>>>
>>>> What qualifies the Nomcom as an association? It can't be the
>>>> people, as there is no continuity, except among the staff.
>>>> and some overlap in chairs as last year's chair, this years'
>>>> chair and next year's possible chair, sit togehter each
>>>> year. I guess that is a bit of natural person continuity.
>>>> Is that chair thread significant?
>>>>
>>>> Or is that it is always formed according to same bylaw, even
>>>> if all of the people are different, that is a qualifying
>>>> mark? Is being a differnt instantiation of the same process
>>>> sufficient to define a UA, even if there is no continuity of
>>>> natural persons?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> thanks
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> avrl
>>>>
>>>> Note: I would have sent this to the legal list, but i never
>>>> managed to get subscribed that one as far as I can tell.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> Avast logo
>>>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.avast.com_&d=AwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=1-1w8mU_eFprE2Nn9QnYf01XIV88MOwkXwHYEbF2Y_8&m=DmDxd6OBVbVviJ0bKhNSgtOIUEqQL6AirJh7eDpUsEU&s=BbTCVGCbBIMnUzDFTJxsKMsQaRToxgTqcClvl8btg0w&e=>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus
>>>> software.
>>>> www.avast.com
>>>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.avast.com_&d=AwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=1-1w8mU_eFprE2Nn9QnYf01XIV88MOwkXwHYEbF2Y_8&m=DmDxd6OBVbVviJ0bKhNSgtOIUEqQL6AirJh7eDpUsEU&s=BbTCVGCbBIMnUzDFTJxsKMsQaRToxgTqcClvl8btg0w&e=>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>>>> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>>>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org');>
>>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>>>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=AwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=1-1w8mU_eFprE2Nn9QnYf01XIV88MOwkXwHYEbF2Y_8&m=DmDxd6OBVbVviJ0bKhNSgtOIUEqQL6AirJh7eDpUsEU&s=BBtc2gSQ6xx-8hQj971xCh1hpBiCNJTzLxwacPC0vFk&e=>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ****************************************************************************************************
>>>> This e-mail is sent by a law firm and may contain information
>>>> that is privileged or confidential.
>>>> If you are not the intended recipient, please delete the e-mail
>>>> and any attachments and notify us
>>>> immediately.
>>>>
>>>> ****************************************************************************************************
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Ccwg-accountability5 mailing list
>>>> Ccwg-accountability5 at icann.org <mailto:Ccwg-accountability5 at icann.org>
>>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-accountability5
>>>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_ccwg-2Daccountability5&d=AwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=RdybPy8TbR7c7h3IlR5bPcQCTJDS_jn3H1ou6QCMt2g&s=IORpAYZjSuO42f-cvuATcY_2GvsL7nXOeZYVfE7RKSg&e=>
>
>--
>Dr. Eberhard W. Lisse \ / Obstetrician & Gynaecologist (Saar)
>el at lisse.NA / * | Telephone: +264 81 124 6733 (cell)
>PO Box 8421 \ /
>Bachbrecht, Namibia ;____/
>_______________________________________________
>Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community
mailing list