[CCWG-ACCT] latest letter from Cruz et al FYI

[Paul Rosenzweig]

Indeed, the only neutral assessment I know of (from 2000) says that the
property issue is indeterminate:

"The question of whether the Department [of Commerce] has the authority to
transfer control of the authoritative root server to ICANN is a difficult
one to answer. Although control over the authoritative root server is not
based on any statute or international agreement, the government has long
been instrumental in supporting and developing the Internet and the domain
name system. The Department has no specific statutory obligations to manage
the domain name system or to control the authoritative root server. It is
uncertain whether transferring control would also include transfer of
government property to a private entity. Determining whether there is
government property may be difficult. To the extent that transition of the
management control to a private entity would involve the transfer of
government property, it is unclear if the Department has the requisite
authority to effect such a transfer."

Robert P. Murphy, General Counsel, "Department of Commerce: Relationship
with the Internet Corporation for
Assigned Names and Numbers Government Accountability Office," July 7, 2000,
B-284206, http://www.gao.gov/new.items/og00033r.pdf

As Nigel said, a pending court case may (or may not) resolve the issue with
some authority.  And I have been told that an internal Departmental analysis
(which, to the best of my knowledge, has not been made public) supports the
proposition that the transition may occur.  Meanwhile, GAO is in the midst
of another study that has yet to be concluded.  Perhaps someone can point me
to an authoritative determination that the property question is "completely
discredited."

Regards
Paul

Paul Rosenzweig
paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com
O: +1 (202) 547-0660
M: +1 (202) 329-9650
VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739
www.redbranchconsulting.com
My PGP Key


-----Original Message-----
From: accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org
[mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Nigel
Roberts
Sent: Saturday, May 21, 2016 12:38 PM
To: accountability-cross-community at icann.org
Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] latest letter from Cruz et al FYI

And indeed, the Weinstein case is likely to provide a large step towards
clarifying.

If the TLD of Iran is ruled to be property under US (irrespective of whether
it's ATTACHABLE property) then exactly as set out by Postel in
881/882 the same rationale will apply both below and above it in the DNS
tree.



On 21/05/16 17:21, Dr Eberhard W Lisse wrote:
> Dear Co-Chairs,
>
> if I were corresponding with this man I would point out to him that 
> the property claim has never been settled other than in his mind, 
> perhaps.
>
> greetings, el
>
> On 2016-05-21 17:09 , Mueller, Milton L wrote:
> [...]
>> completely discredited arguments (such as the "government property" 
>> claim,
> [...]
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list 
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>
_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community