[CWG-RFP3] Is there is a more suitable legal jurisdiction for anIANA subsidiary?

Wed Nov 5 18:24:39 UTC 2014

+1  I believe this is what Becky suggested as well.

Chuck

From: cwg-rfp3-bounces at icann.org [mailto:cwg-rfp3-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Kieren McCarthy
Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2014 12:31 PM
To: Allan MacGillivray
Cc: RFP3
Subject: Re: [CWG-RFP3] Is there is a more suitable legal jurisdiction for anIANA subsidiary?

I'm finding this conversation thread very frustrating.

If this is a topic being seriously considered - and it looks like it is. And if none of us are in any way qualified to provide a cogent analysis - which it looks like we aren't. Then surely the obvious solution is to find someone, or some group, that can provide some answers to questions.

Based purely on human nature, I strongly suspect that the argument that California is some how a special place for ICANN/IANA is more to do with it being the status quo than any verifiable reality.

It is possible that IANA would be better placed in another jurisdiction - although since we have failed to draw up any grounds by which that judgment would be made, the whole conversation seems a little pointless.

It is equally possible that moving jurisdiction would have no real impact at all.

One thing that I do see as a fact is that "California law" has been used repeatedly to stymie recommended changes that the staff hasn't agreed with or wanted to introduce. That is a problem.

If that is the problem we are seeking a solution to, it strikes me that the conversation should focus on how to get independent analysis of decisions that reference "California law" as a reason for a given direction rather than embark on a discussion about jurisdictions overall.

Either way, let's take our jobs seriously and find some experts rather than mistake familiarity with expertise.

Kieren

On Wed, Nov 5, 2014 at 8:16 AM, Allan MacGillivray <allan.macgillivray at cira.ca<mailto:allan.macgillivray at cira.ca>> wrote:
Becky – I think that would be of considerable value.

Allan

From: cwg-rfp3-bounces at icann.org<mailto:cwg-rfp3-bounces at icann.org> [mailto:cwg-rfp3-bounces at icann.org<mailto:cwg-rfp3-bounces at icann.org>] On Behalf Of Burr, Becky
Sent: November-05-14 10:01 AM
To: Becky Burr; Dwi Elfrida Martina
Cc: RFP3

Subject: Re: [CWG-RFP3] Is there is a more suitable legal jurisdiction for anIANA subsidiary?

Team -

Jurisdiction issues are very complex.  I believe that it would be extremely helpful for us (as well as for many other work streams) to develop a shared  perspective on the basic rules and issues.  Although there are many lawyers participating, we would probably get the most benefit from an independent/neutral provider.  If this is of interest, I would be happy to work with the co-chairs and other interested folks to put materials and a webinar together.

J. Beckwith Burr
Neustar, Inc. / Deputy General Counsel and Chief Privacy Officer
1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20006
Office: + 1.202.533.2932<tel:%2B%201.202.533.2932>  Mobile:  +1.202.352.6367<tel:%2B1.202.352.6367>  / becky.burr at neustar.biz<mailto:becky.burr at neustar.biz> / www.neustar.biz<http://www.neustar.biz>

From: <Burr>, Becky Burr <becky.burr at neustar.biz<mailto:becky.burr at neustar.biz>>
Date: Wednesday, November 5, 2014 at 9:24 AM
To: Dwi Elfrida Martina <dwi.elfrida at gmail.com<mailto:dwi.elfrida at gmail.com>>
Cc: RFP3 <cwg-rfp3 at icann.org<mailto:cwg-rfp3 at icann.org>>
Subject: Re: [CWG-RFP3] Is there is a more suitable legal jurisdiction for anIANA subsidiary?

Several independent review panels have held that ICANN is subject to international law.

Becky Burr
Sent from my iPhone

On Nov 5, 2014, at 03:50, Dwi Elfrida Martina <dwi.elfrida at gmail.com<mailto:dwi.elfrida at gmail.com>> wrote:
Hi,
my name is Dwi Elfrida, I am from Indonesia. in respond to optioned 2 from Robert, and thanks to bring the jurisdiction issue up, in my opinion to tie up IANA legal status to ICANN's legal status might a faster way to reach IANA's legislation. But, it wouldn't be solution for many parties who questioned IANA's independency from the US government authority, as I know, for some parties the good news (main spirit)  of  transition of IANA stewardship is to internationalized IANA, means to dismiss the image of single authority of the US government over IANA. Meanwhile, some parties are still debated the ICANN's legislation that cannot be counted as International law, as all cases of TLD (mostly gTLD) will be processed in the US by using the US law. Therefore, the government of France (at ICANN meeting in London) was still calling the issue of making ICANN as International organization legalized by International law. And this idea seems like supported by some governments in Europe, and other part of this world. Indeed, placing IANA's functions and office from the US to other part of this world, is not the solution as well, because it is not the matter or territory, but the matter of legislation system, which law that suitable enough to validate IANA? do we agree to use the US legislation system like has been used by the ICANN, or do we agree to use International law, then how will we make it happen? Our choice on IANA's legislation system will determine the law enforcement of IANA's policies in the future.
Regards,
Dwi

On Mon, Nov 3, 2014 at 11:33 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>> wrote:
[Boxbe]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.boxbe.com_overview&d=AAMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=k2GsV6WE92A31X-8yWSy_xDHzzCQkZmNP4-qSd-m8eA&s=dwXKcyJyHjOeOvMCvWgkHIQUnNb53ULq_5GsKBtjdqM&e=>[http://www.boxbe.com/stfopen?tc_serial=19182912144&tc_rand=1184408227&utm_source=stf&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=ANNO_MWTP&utm_content=001]Greg Shatan (gregshatanipc at gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>) is not on your Guest List<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.boxbe.com_approved-2Dlist-3Ftc-5Fserial-3D19182912144-26tc-5Frand-3D1184408227-26utm-5Fsource-3Dstf-26utm-5Fmedium-3Demail-26utm-5Fcampaign-3DANNO-5FMWTP-26utm-5Fcontent-3D001-26token-3DqXEye5ECFs8sowPv0-252F4O8pOgVuL-252FBmLxktanSEOAIoHm3oce3A-252BGf6umfpPHJkCc-26key-3DhXVOG4roryQLXAw-252BAJXI90w8csVOeh5xYEclQYt0Qbk-253D&d=AAMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=k2GsV6WE92A31X-8yWSy_xDHzzCQkZmNP4-qSd-m8eA&s=l0Hpa_joycqSp3Z7zfl75E-l1fPnGYe97BVXeJCeLdI&e=> | Approve sender<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.boxbe.com_anno-3Ftc-5Fserial-3D19182912144-26tc-5Frand-3D1184408227-26utm-5Fsource-3Dstf-26utm-5Fmedium-3Demail-26utm-5Fcampaign-3DANNO-5FMWTP-26utm-5Fcontent-3D001-26token-3DqXEye5ECFs8sowPv0-252F4O8pOgVuL-252FBmLxktanSEOAIoHm3oce3A-252BGf6umfpPHJkCc-26key-3DhXVOG4roryQLXAw-252BAJXI90w8csVOeh5xYEclQYt0Qbk-253D&d=AAMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=k2GsV6WE92A31X-8yWSy_xDHzzCQkZmNP4-qSd-m8eA&s=DuwSLG5ar2V4oU67ZKkRXsAZXkWFaXvH6ogLhFbsl8U&e=> | Approve domain<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.boxbe.com_anno-3Ftc-5Fserial-3D19182912144-26tc-5Frand-3D1184408227-26utm-5Fsource-3Dstf-26utm-5Fmedium-3Demail-26utm-5Fcampaign-3DANNO-5FMWTP-26utm-5Fcontent-3D001-26dom-26token-3DqXEye5ECFs8sowPv0-252F4O8pOgVuL-252FBmLxktanSEOAIoHm3oce3A-252BGf6umfpPHJkCc-26key-3DhXVOG4roryQLXAw-252BAJXI90w8csVOeh5xYEclQYt0Qbk-253D&d=AAMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=k2GsV6WE92A31X-8yWSy_xDHzzCQkZmNP4-qSd-m8eA&s=2jX-2mWyYFU7bmDZVRcEHQfGtVoCrA-zbiHakjXt0WM&e=>

All:

Here is Robert's second question (which I think also applies to the concept of a fully independent IANA):

For  option #2.

- Is there is a  jurisdiction that ICANN has (or can obtain) legal status might be more suitable to use to create IANA as a subsidiary. Such an option might allow for the link to be a subsidiary of ICANN, but sever the legal link to the US. A negative, of course, would be moving the function and existing staff to a new part of the world.

Comments and discussion?

Greg

_______________________________________________
Cwg-rfp3 mailing list
Cwg-rfp3 at icann.org<mailto:Cwg-rfp3 at icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-rfp3<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_cwg-2Drfp3&d=AAMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=k2GsV6WE92A31X-8yWSy_xDHzzCQkZmNP4-qSd-m8eA&s=dYjlRZKCFivOUjM8w-G3Ngmrm3uTYteQNcbUQCVgfQ0&e=>

--
Dwi Elfrida MS
_______________________________________________
Cwg-rfp3 mailing list
Cwg-rfp3 at icann.org<mailto:Cwg-rfp3 at icann.org>
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_cwg-2Drfp3&d=AAICAg&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=k2GsV6WE92A31X-8yWSy_xDHzzCQkZmNP4-qSd-m8eA&s=dYjlRZKCFivOUjM8w-G3Ngmrm3uTYteQNcbUQCVgfQ0&e=

_______________________________________________
Cwg-rfp3 mailing list
Cwg-rfp3 at icann.org<mailto:Cwg-rfp3 at icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-rfp3

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-rfp3/attachments/20141105/d0af4d72/attachment-0001.html>