[Area 4] 40 items added

[Sivasubramanian M]

Oliver / Eric


I thought your scenario referred to Verisign which operates IANA ???  If
this is not correct, I need to correct my response against this scenario


Sivasubramanian M <https://www.facebook.com/sivasubramanian.muthusamy>

On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 4:47 AM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl at gih.com>
wrote:

>  Hello Siva and Eric,
>
> let me try and explain quickly:
>
> On 14/01/2015 20:43, Eric Brunner-Williams wrote:
>
> Siva,
>
> Thanks for the clarification.
>
> ... this imaginary scenario of a threat of litigation from the present
> IANA operator.
>
>
> In this scenario, who is ICANN suing?
>
>
> If a Contract Co. was in place, the reallocation of the contract to
> another operator would likely trigger the existing contract holder, ICANN
> at present, to sue the Contract Co. In another scenario, any organisation
> could sue the Contract Co. to hinder its operation.
>
>
> Olivier
> ​ came up with
>  scenario
> ​ s 26, 27, 28 as well as 33 among a few others​
> . He would be in a better position to clarify. The message is copied to
> him.
> ​ ​
>  ​
>
>
>
>
> I look forward to his response, if any. Again, as a personal courtesy.
>
>
> PRT => MRT - nomenclature has evolved since I worked on the scenarios.
>
> 26: A law is passed or a country gets a court to order an action that
> bypasses any process in place. An example of such bypassing (but unrelated
> to the IANA functions) is the closing of .COM domains by the FBI of Web
> sites that are hosted in another country.
> 27: pretty explicit. Also - if an MRT was not under the legal umbrella of
> any organisation, individual MRT members would be liable to litigation on
> an individual basis. So physical threat is not the only threat.
> 28: quite explicit
> 29: Independent Panels have not fared well in the ICANN world. For an
> example of terrible panel decisions, see the visual similarity panels where
> .COM was deemed to be confusingly similar to .CAM by one panel and not
> confusingly similar to .CAM by another panel.
> 33: the question is if MRT is not a legal body or within a legal body how
> does it get an independent Contract Co. to abide by its instructions when
> Contract Co. decides to ignore it
>
> I've responded to the numbers listed but would be happy to clarify any
> other scenario if needed.
>
> Kindest regards,
>
> Olivier
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ccwg-accountability4/attachments/20150115/22e703aa/attachment.html>