[ianatransition] Jurisdiction (was Composition of the ICG)
jcurran at istaff.org
Mon Aug 4 15:37:50 UTC 2014
On Aug 4, 2014, at 10:50 AM, Richard Hill <rhill at hill-a.ch> wrote:
> The fact that a US court might order IANA to transfer IP addresses implies
> that the issue raised by Parminder is something that needs to be worked on
> also with respect to addresses, and not just names.
You left off the phrase "contrary to adopted policy", i.e. the fact that a
court might order IANA to transfer IP addresses _contrary to adopted policy_
is a significant concern of some folks. Note that a court ordering IANA
to maintain one of the registries in accordance with policy is actually a
feature, i.e. something that might be sought in enforcement of a contract
between IANA and a registry policy development body.
The global success of the Internet does mean that governments have every
right to be interested and involved in policy development for the various
registries, as there is always the potential for real-world governance
implications given the global & pervasive nature of the Internet. To the
extent that means that registry policy development may have "political"
implications, so be it.
I believe the confusion that arises is whether the IANA record-keeping
(as opposed to policy development for IANA registries) is inherently a
"political" matter... I acknowledge that having these registries nominally
under the control of a single government today makes it such, but thought
that the goal was to establish mechanisms such that the IANA is free from
any risk of ad-hoc changes from any source, governments included. The IANA
performs a set of technical tasks that are record-keeping, and proper
execution can be objectively measured, so I'm having trouble understanding
your (and parminder's) view that IANA's performance is inherently a
Disclaimer: My views alone.
More information about the ianatransition