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

[Mueller, Milton L]

> -----Original Message-----
> 
> Indeed, there is no definitive determination as to whether property is
> involved.

Incorrect. For people who know what the IANA actually does, there is little doubt about this question. Neither the authoritative root zone file nor the ability to modify it is "government property"  For those who care to listen to reason, the issue is explained here: http://www.internetgovernance.org/2015/09/29/does-the-iana-transition-constitute-a-transfer-of-us-government-property/ 

I was around and involved in 2000. The 2000 GAO report was commissioned during a highly partisan period in which a certain business interest very much wanted a finding that it was government property and could not be transferred to ICANN. The GAO basically ducked the issue, indicating that it could not support such a finding but in order to keep the Senator who commissioned the report (who was acting on behalf of that business interest) happy, said that it was "inconclusive." 

But look at what they _do_ say: 

"The Department undertook its domain name system management responsibilities to carry out the President's directive to support efforts to privatize the domain name system. Under these circumstances, neither the Department nor any other federal agency is under an explicit statutory obligation to manage the domain name system including control over the authoritative root server."

"The Department has no specific statutory obligations to manage the domain name system or to control the authoritative root server." 

"control over the authoritative root server is not based on any statute or international agreement"

The 1998 modification of the Verisign cooperative agreement in which the US Commerce Department asserted authority over RZF modifications does not assert or in any way suggest that this power is "government property." 

Case closed.