[CCWG-ACCT] Legal question

Paul Rosenzweig paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com
Mon Apr 27 16:19:08 UTC 2015


I take it that the answer to my question is "no."  The USG has not
apparently made a claim of ownership of the root.  Hence the legal question
is merely theoretical -- if it were to assert such a claim, how might we
resolve it?

As for stewardship, that is of course a different legal concept.  One can be
the steward of an item without owning it.  One can serve as a trustee
without an ownership interest.  One can procure a service with respect to an
item without owning it.  Etc.

Paul

Paul Rosenzweig
paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com 
O: +1 (202) 547-0660
M: +1 (202) 329-9650
VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739
Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066


-----Original Message-----
From: Dr Eberhard W Lisse [mailto:el at lisse.na] 
Sent: Monday, April 27, 2015 11:48 AM
To: CCWG Accountability
Cc: Deerhake Stephen; Lisse Eberhard
Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Legal question

Does Rosenzweig wish to transfer stewardship of .NA? Obviously not, but of
he did, he better have a claim to it...

el

--
Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini

> On Apr 27, 2015, at 12:39, Paul Rosenzweig
<paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com> wrote:
> 
> OK Doctor -- I'll bite.  Does the USG have a claim on the root?  As a 
> factual matter, has it ever asserted such a claim?  If so, please 
> point me to that claim as a statement of USG policy.  A web link or a 
> PDF will be sufficient.  If it has not ever made such a claim, then 
> asking whether the USG has a claim to the root is like asking whether
Rosenzweig has a claim to
> the .na ccTLD.    Theoretically, conceivable but in practice irrelevant.
> 
> Paul
> 
> Paul Rosenzweig
> paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com
> O: +1 (202) 547-0660
> M: +1 (202) 329-9650
> VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739
> Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dr Eberhard W Lisse [mailto:el at lisse.na]
> Sent: Sunday, April 26, 2015 4:14 PM
> To: Paul Rosenzweig
> Cc: <accountability-cross-community at icann.org>;
> ccwg-accountability5 at icann.org
> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Legal question
> 
> That is not the questions, the question is wether the USG DOES have a 
> claim on the root, not what its position is on something nor whether 
> the IANA function is a service, never mind that any such service would 
> be linked to the root (asset, property or whatever).
> 
> And we are actually speaking about the root itself not how it is managed.
> 
> Even if we assumed that the service argument were valid, how can 
> someone be obliged to accept a service?
> 
> Many ccTLD managers do not really mind who keeps the demographic data 
> and the name server data current, but I most certainly do not need 
> revocation service provided. I personally don't care much about 
> Delegation (including
> Transfer) and Retirement, but these are not uncontroversial, either.
> 
> greetings, el
> 
> --
> Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini
> 
>> On Apr 25, 2015, at 21:33, Paul Rosenzweig
> <paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com> wrote:
>> 
>> The flaw is in the premise of the question -- that the United States 
>> asserts ownership of or a property interest in the IANA function.  
>> The US position 
>> (http://www.ntia.doc.gov/speechtestimony/2015/testimony-assistant-sec
>> r
>> etary-
>> strickling-senate-committee-commerce-science-and-) is that the IANA 
>> function is a service: "Federal agencies can discontinue obtaining 
>> such services when they no longer need them.  As NTIA made clear at 
>> the time of its Statement of Policy, it intended only to procure the 
>> IANA functions services until such time as the transition to private 
>> sector management of the Internet DNS was complete."
>> 
>> Paul
>> 
>> Paul Rosenzweig
>> paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com
>> O: +1 (202) 547-0660
>> M: +1 (202) 329-9650
>> VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739
>> Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066
>> 
>> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Dr Eberhard W Lisse [mailto:el at lisse.NA]
>> Sent: Saturday, April 25, 2015 12:34 PM
>> To: accountability-cross-community at icann.org
>> Cc: ccwg-accountability5 at icann.org; Lisse Eberhard
>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Legal question
>> 
>> Avri,
>> 
>> at issue is not that it is the US (government) which has a "claim"
>> on it, but whether this "claim" allows the USG to do what it wants to 
>> do, and how this affects (ccTLD)s.
>> 
>> 
>> Under whose oversight something was created does not matter, it 
>> matters by whom (including acting on behalf of), dependence does mean 
>> equally little in this regards.
>> 
>> Having factual control over something does not mean it is right (or 
>> even legal).
>> 
>> 
>> This is not scholarly or academic, at all.
>> 
>> 
>> Let me give you (a real life) example:
>> 
>>   Namibia inherited stewardship of an island (as large as a
>>   baseball field) in a river next to Botswana at independence
>>   from South Africa.  Until independence South Africa had
>>   stewardship, and the Botswana government did not feel in a
>>   position to challenge that.  After Namibia's independence
>>   Botswana occupied it and when this went to (International)
>>   Court, it turned out stewardship had belonged to Botswana
>>   all along.
>> 
>>   So it was duly returned by Namibia.
>> 
>> see
>> http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/index.php?sum=505&p1=3&p2=3&case=98&p3=
>> 5 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sedudu (in particular the second last
>> paragraph) and
>> http://webworld.unesco.org/water/wwap/pccp/cd/pdf/educational_tools/c
>> o
>> urse_m
>> odules/reference_documents/sharinginternwatercases/sciencehistory.pdf
>> 
>> 
>>   Now imagine the South African government had sold the island
>>   to someone who then had invested significantly in a Lodge
>>   type of thing...
>> 
>> 
>> How on earth can you give something away that doesn't belong to you?
>> 
>> Or if it does, what rules does the USG have for disposing of assets 
>> (such as this)?
>> 
>> By the way, the view that The IANA Function is being executed well is 
>> most certainly not shared by many ccTLD Managers.
>> 
>> There have been significant issues with response times in the past 
>> (which is an operational issue and would fall under CWG, and seems to 
>> have imporev a lot anyway) but in particular the ones that are being 
>> or have been leaned on by the IANA Department, or where the ccTLD has 
>> been revoked under extremely dubious circumstances (.PN, .KE, .AU and 
>> recently .ML to name but a few) but also the ccNSO which chartered 
>> the FoI Wg (with the GAC() for this very reason.
>> 
>> Which I why am concerned about the lack of accountability in this 
>> regards needing to be improved before the transition.
>> 
>> greetings, el
>> 
>>> On 2015-04-25 16:31 , Avri Doria wrote:
>>> 
>>> Hi,
>>> 
>>> Fool that I sometimes am, i have been thinking about your question 
>>> from a CCWG participant perspective, and from the perspective of a 
>>> USAn.
>>> 
>>> Also not a international lawyer or lawyer of any sort.
>>> 
>>>> On 25-Apr-15 10:31, Dr Eberhard W Lisse wrote:
>>>> This does not even address the question whether the USG has any 
>>>> claim to the root, and the numerous consequences originating from this.
>>> 
>>> I do not think of the US as having a claim on it.  But I am sure 
>>> that this is an issue legal scholars could have a good discussion 
>>> on.  It would be interesting* to see some exegesis from the global 
>>> legal scholars on this issue.  I bet it would make for fascinating 
>>> reading, and I am sure there are many different interesting 
>>> scholarly perspectives on it.
>>> 
>>> Interesting issue, but I do not see it as a gating issue for the 
>>> _Accountability_ CCWG
>>> 
>>> I do think of the US as currently having responsibility for it. It 
>>> was created under their oversight, for better or worse the world has 
>>> become dependent on it, and until they can hand the responsibility 
>>> to others, it is their problem.  They are trying, for the most part, 
>>> to hand the Stewardship responsibilities off to an appropriate 
>>> multi-stakeholder group.
>>> 
>>> There seems to be a broad view, though not universal, that ICANN 
>>> does a decent job as the current IANA function operator.  But while 
>>> they do the job of IANA well, there is also broad agreement, though 
>>> not universal, that ICANN needs to become more accountable as part 
>>> of any transfer of Stewardship.  US oversight, and international 
>>> pressure on the US on they way they do the oversight, has been 
>>> important in trying to keep ICANN in line. Lose that, and people start
to worry.
>>> 
>>> So I think that whether the US has a claim to the root or not is an 
>>> interesting side issue, and I love interesting side issues, but I do 
>>> not believe it is material to the work this group has been assigned 
>>> to do.
>>> 
>>> I do not support passing this on to the legal firms we have, as it 
>>> is not gating for this group and is not in either law firms skill 
>>> set or terms of reference, as I understand them.  As I am not a 
>>> member of the legal sub-team, my opinion on this is without weight, 
>>> but I felt like expressing it this fine Saturday morning.
>>> 
>>> cheers
>>> 
>>> avri
>>> 
>>> 
>>> * Should the US congress decide it is in the position to stop a 
>>> transition that there is broad agreement on, then this scholarly 
>>> research might become useful.  But that will not be a task for this 
>>> group either.
>> [...]
>> _______________________________________________
>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list 
>> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list 
>> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list 
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community




More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list