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

[Carlton Samuels]

Greg:
OK.  This framework has morphed beyond what the plain terms would have
indicated, IMHO.

Secondly, the context of modifying the IANA 'arrangements' was always
informed by a certain political sensibility...and a deliberate attempt to
blunt that accusation; think back to recent events in IG.  I know it is an
inconvenient fact...and I could say more about the political philosophy
that renders this mute but what the hell.

I will go back to observing, mute and without malice.


==============================
Carlton A Samuels
Mobile: 876-818-1799
*Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround*
=============================

On Thu, Nov 6, 2014 at 3:52 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com> wrote:

> Carlton:
>
> You haven't actually answered my question: What are the jurisdictional
> concerns raised if IANA (now a division within ICANN) was put into a
> non-profit corporate entity resident and incorporated in California?
>
> I don't think that separability and jurisdiction are conjoined issues.
> Separability primarily has to do with the ability to remove the IANA group
> from ICANN control at some future time if actions of ICANN make that
> necessary at some future time.  This can be done perfectly well (and much
> more easily) without putting IANA in a separate jurisdiction.
>
> As for "US control" -- I don't see how that fits into the discussion here,
> which is about the physical and legal location of a private (i.e.,
> non-governmental) entity.  I fail to see the connection to "US control.".
> Please let me know what your specific concerns are in this regard.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Greg Shatan
>
> On Thu, Nov 6, 2014 at 3:28 PM, Carlton Samuels <carlton.samuels at gmail.com
> > wrote:
>
>>
>> On Thu, Nov 6, 2014 at 2:10 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I suppose there has been some discussion of putting IANA, Inc. in a
>>> different jurisdiction -- which goes back to the original question of what
>>> jurisdictional concerns do stakeholders actually have?
>>
>>
>> You got that right!  And it stems from the common and sustained political
>> undercurrent to this entire debate, what some bluntly - and maybe
>> intemperately - refer as 'US control'. This is what makes separability and
>> jurisdiction like conjoined twins; one goes everywhere with the other until
>> you decided to maybe sacrifice one or other.
>>
>> To dismiss - or rather ignore - it will not let it go away. And,
>> naysaying does violence to reason.
>>
>> -Carlton
>>
>>
>>
>> ==============================
>> Carlton A Samuels
>> Mobile: 876-818-1799
>> *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround*
>> =============================
>>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-rfp3/attachments/20141106/6554fd8d/attachment.html>