[ianatransition] Jurisdiction (was Composition of the ICG)

Richard Hill rhill at hill-a.ch
Mon Aug 4 17:21:37 UTC 2014

Dear John,

You raise a new idea which is surely worth exploring.  If I understand you
correctly, the idea is to use the well-known concept of redundancy to
protect against failure, the failure in this case being capture by a
national court system.

Indeed running parallel (redundant) IANA functions in more that one
jurisdiction could mitigate that risk.

But I don't think that two would be enough (because if one is captured, that
leaves only one, which could tempt the second state to also capture it).  I
think that you need three, or at least 2.5, where the ".5" would be a cold
backup site.

By cold backup I mean a site in a third jurisdiction that has offices,
hardware, and whatever other facilities are required for the IANA function
and that could become operational within 1-2 days by flying staff out of the
captured jurisdiction and into the cold backup site.

It remains to be seen if such a solution would be considered politically
acceptable, given the history of this debate, in particular if one of the
operational sites remains in the US.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Curran [mailto:jcurran at istaff.org]
> Sent: lundi, 4. aout 2014 18:25
> To: rhill at hill-a.ch
> Cc: ianatransition at icann.org
> Subject: Re: [ianatransition] Jurisdiction (was Composition of the ICG)
> On Aug 4, 2014, at 11:53 AM, Richard Hill <rhill at hill-a.ch> wrote:
> > If there were immunity of jurisdiction (or something equivalent) and the
> > IANA function were strictly limited to implementing decisions taken
> > elsewhere (as it is now), then indeed the IANA function
> properly speaking
> > should not be political (in an ideal world).
> Agreed - I believe that immunity of jurisdiction is one option (but share
> Michael Froomkin's concerns regarding potential loss of the rather useful
> ability for legal redress)  I also believe that an IANA which has loci of
> operations in two or more dispersed locations could provide some level of
> protection with respect to ad-hoc changes; the various registry
> communities
> are quite capable of detecting such changes and switching to a locus that
> is operating properly.
> > But there still would be a political issue regarding the
> decisions, so the
> > discussion would just take place at a different level.
> That may be true, but we cannot discuss everything at once in any case,
> and handling questions in the proper context can make for more productive
> discussions.
> /John
> Disclaimer: My views alone.

More information about the ianatransition mailing list