<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default"><font face="verdana, sans-serif">I think the more germane (and more accurate) statement of Phil's was the second part of his couplet:</font></div><div class="gmail_default"><font face="verdana, sans-serif"><br></font></div><div class="gmail_default"><font face="verdana, sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.8px">ICANN maintains the root zone, it doesn't decide who performs technical and other operations for a given ccTLD.</span><br></font></div><div class="gmail_default"><span style="font-size:12.8px"><font face="verdana, sans-serif"><br></font></span></div><div class="gmail_default"><span style="font-size:12.8px"><font face="verdana, sans-serif">(Yes, actually the Root Zone Maintainer (currently Verisign) actually maintains the root zone, not ICANN. The point is the powerlessness of ICANN to actually cause (rather than receive, verify and transmit) changes to the root. This will be even more so when Root Zone administration is in a separate corporation (currently known as PTI).)</font></span></div><div class="gmail_default"><span style="font-size:12.8px"><font face="verdana, sans-serif"><br></font></span></div><div class="gmail_default"><span style="font-size:12.8px"><font face="verdana, sans-serif">I know enough about ccTLD "control" to know that any generality about ccTLD control is false. Even this one.</font></span></div><div class="gmail_default"><span style="font-size:12.8px"><font face="verdana, sans-serif"><br></font></span></div><div class="gmail_default"><span style="font-size:12.8px"><font face="verdana, sans-serif">Greg</font></span></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 6:36 PM, Stephen Deerhake <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:sdeerhake@nic.as" target="_blank">sdeerhake@nic.as</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Greetings Phil.<br>
<br>
You state:<br>
<span class=""><br>
> I'm not familiar with the details on that. But any nation controls its own<br>
ccTLD.<br>
<br>
</span>Can you cite any statute (US or otherwise) or policy (IETF, IANA, ICANN,<br>
etc.) that supports your claim that "...any nation controls its own ccTLD."?<br>
<br>
Thank you.<br>
<br>
Regards,<br>
<br>
Stephen Deerhake<br>
.AS Domain Registry<br>
GDNS, LLC<br>
<div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5"><br>
-----Original Message-----<br>
From: <a href="mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org">accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org</a><br>
[mailto:<a href="mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org">accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org</a>] On Behalf Of Phil<br>
Corwin<br>
Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2016 5:30 PM<br>
To: Nigel Roberts <<a href="mailto:nigel@channelisles.net">nigel@channelisles.net</a>>;<br>
<a href="mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org">accountability-cross-community@icann.org</a><br>
Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] premature jurisdiction debates<br>
<br>
I'm not familiar with the details on that. But any nation controls its own<br>
ccTLD.<br>
<br>
ICANN maintains the root zone, it doesn't decide who performs technical and<br>
other operations for a given ccTLD.<br>
<br>
Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal<br>
Virtualaw LLC<br>
1155 F Street, NW<br>
Suite 1050<br>
Washington, DC 20004<br>
<a href="tel:202-559-8597" value="+12025598597">202-559-8597</a>/Direct<br>
<a href="tel:202-559-8750" value="+12025598750">202-559-8750</a>/Fax<br>
<a href="tel:202-255-6172" value="+12022556172">202-255-6172</a>/Cell<br>
<br>
Twitter: @VlawDC<br>
<br>
"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey<br>
<br>
-----Original Message-----<br>
From: <a href="mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org">accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org</a><br>
[mailto:<a href="mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org">accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org</a>] On Behalf Of Nigel<br>
Roberts<br>
Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2016 5:11 PM<br>
To: <a href="mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org">accountability-cross-community@icann.org</a><br>
Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] premature jurisdiction debates<br>
<br>
And the redelegation of .US . . . .<br>
<br>
<br>
On 22/06/16 20:39, Phil Corwin wrote:<br>
> So long as we have a common understanding of what would constitute<br>
> "interference by the U.S. government" (of which there has been little<br>
> to none since ICANN's inception, with the possible exception of the<br>
> delay in .xxx delegation to the root). I presume you are advocating<br>
> deciding upon a process to address such an occurrence, rather than<br>
> making a decision now about an alternate jurisdiction for a situation<br>
> that may never arise, or occur decades from now.<br>
><br>
> I'll start that discussion by stating that it would likely include<br>
> interference in ICANN's policymaking process (outside of advocacy<br>
> within the GAC) or trying to block or compel a change in the root<br>
> zone, through methods that are inconsistent with the Bylaws.<br>
><br>
> I don't think it should include private litigation brought against<br>
> ICANN and heard in state or federal court; or law enforcement actions,<br>
> such as bringing an antitrust action if there is an allegation of<br>
> illicit pricing decisions, or criminal charges against an ICANN<br>
> employee for embezzlement, etc.<br>
><br>
> *Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal*<br>
><br>
> *Virtualaw LLC*<br>
><br>
> *1155 F Street, NW*<br>
><br>
> *Suite 1050*<br>
><br>
> *Washington, DC 20004*<br>
><br>
> *<a href="tel:202-559-8597" value="+12025598597">202-559-8597</a>/Direct*<br>
><br>
> *<a href="tel:202-559-8750" value="+12025598750">202-559-8750</a>/Fax*<br>
><br>
> *<a href="tel:202-255-6172" value="+12022556172">202-255-6172</a>/Cell***<br>
><br>
> **<br>
><br>
> *Twitter: @VlawDC*<br>
><br>
> */"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey/*<br>
><br>
> *From:*<a href="mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org">accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org</a><br>
> [mailto:<a href="mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org">accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org</a>] *On Behalf<br>
> Of *Mueller, Milton L<br>
> *Sent:* Wednesday, June 22, 2016 3:15 PM<br>
> *To:* Guru Acharya; Roelof Meijer<br>
> *Cc:* <a href="mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org">accountability-cross-community@icann.org</a><br>
> *Subject:* [CCWG-ACCT] premature jurisdiction debates<br>
><br>
> In the reflexive approach, you would ask "what are the institutional<br>
> mechanisms or procedures to ensure that jurisdiction issue can be<br>
> addressed in an adverse situation where the US jurisdiction is longer<br>
> tenable, however rare it may it?" In the absolute rarest of rare cases<br>
> that the US legislature or judiciary try to interfere with community<br>
> decisions (the black swan scenario), how would ICANN ensure that this<br>
> interference is contained/minimised? What are the institutional<br>
> mechanisms or procedures for addressing the situation where the US (or<br>
> any other) jurisdiction is no longer hospitable/ideal for the ICANN<br>
> policymaking or IANA functions? These are the questions that we should<br>
> be asking in the WS2 on jurisdiction.<br>
><br>
> MM: I think this is a good point. Even advocates of US jurisdiction or<br>
> those who, like me, think there is just no better alternative and that<br>
> the disruption and risks caused by a change are not worth the<br>
> uncertain improvements, can easily agree that there should be<br>
> procedures or plans for how to respond to interference by the U.S.<br>
government.<br>
><br>
> Dr. Milton L. Mueller<br>
><br>
> Professor, School of Public Policy<br>
><br>
> Georgia Institute of Technology<br>
><br>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------<br>
> --<br>
><br>
> No virus found in this message.<br>
> Checked by AVG - <a href="http://www.avg.com" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">www.avg.com</a> <<a href="http://www.avg.com" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.avg.com</a>><br>
> Version: 2016.0.7497 / Virus Database: 4613/12467 - Release Date:<br>
> 06/21/16<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list<br>
> <a href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a><br>
> <a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a><br>
><br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a><br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a><br>
<br>
-----<br>
No virus found in this message.<br>
Checked by AVG - <a href="http://www.avg.com" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">www.avg.com</a><br>
Version: 2016.0.7497 / Virus Database: 4613/12467 - Release Date: 06/21/16<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a><br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a><br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a><br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div>