[ianatransition] Jurisdiction (was Composition of the ICG)
rhill at hill-a.ch
Thu Jul 31 04:41:07 UTC 2014
Please see below.
Thanks and best,
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ianatransition-bounces at icann.org
> [mailto:ianatransition-bounces at icann.org]On Behalf Of John Curran
> Sent: jeudi, 31. juillet 2014 03:48
> To: Michael Froomkin
> Cc: ianatransition at icann.org
> Subject: Re: [ianatransition] Jurisdiction (was Composition of the ICG)
> On Jul 30, 2014, at 3:59 PM, Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of
> Law <froomkin at law.miami.edu> wrote:
> > On Wed, 30 Jul 2014, John Curran wrote:
> Agreed, but why wouldn't these circumstances be addressable via an IANA
> organization which must account for its fidelity of performance to a
> formal membership structure? For sake of argument, such an membership
> structure could be composed of those parties with a policy development
> role for any of the IANA registries. Would such a governance structure
> in the IANA charter (subject to arbitration) alleviate your concerns
> about immunity of jurisdiction as suggested by Richard?
It does not alleviate my concerns regarding immunity of jurisdiction, for
the reasons set forth in my previous E-Mail.
It does alleviate many of my other concerns, and is indeed pretty much what
I have proposed myself: that ICANN and IANA should be membership
organizations directly accountable to their members (not through indirect
NomComs and such).
> Disclaimer: my views alone.
> ianatransition mailing list
> ianatransition at icann.org
More information about the ianatransition