[Ws2-jurisdiction] Our work so far, and a way forward

[Mueller, Milton L]

Good answer, Greg. Glad you had the time and patience to wade through all that.
One final point:


5. What if the FCC revises its decision of forbearance about its authority over Internet addressing system (as it did on the issue of whether Internet was title one or title two)?

MM: This would require legislation, because nothing in the existing Communications Act gives the FCC any authority over DNS or IP addressing. So this is just another example of “what if the US legislates to regulate ICANN in some way?” Which of course is a risk if ICANN were in ANY jurisdiction.
This is not true -- in the same way as, without any new legislation, FCC revised its stand on forbearance over seeing Internet as a telecom utility, and made it title 2.


You really shouldn’t try to lecture US telecom policy people on our own laws and regulatory processes. Put simply, Title 1 and Title 2 were in the law, and it was within the FCC’s authority to classify broadband internet service providers as an unregulated info service or as a regulated common carrier. Here’s the problem for you: ICANN, DNS and IP addresses are NOT mentioned in the law in any way, thus new legislation would have to be passed for the FCC to do anything. And as I pointed out before, legislation to control or regulate ICANN could happen wherever it is located.

Dr. Milton L Mueller
Professor, School of Public Policy<http://spp.gatech.edu/>
Georgia Institute of Technology
Internet Governance Project
http://internetgovernance.org/

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ws2-jurisdiction/attachments/20161017/96d1f621/attachment.html>