[Chapter-delegates] Internet Society Applauds US Senate for Saying #yestoIANA

[Richard Hill]

I think that all the attention being paid to what is just dirty US politicking is obscuring what I consider to be the real question: why do we care what the US Congress, and/or the US government does?

 

There has never been any legal obligation for ICANN to enter into an agreement with the US government. The IANA contract is in fact a purchase order issued by the US government for services which ICANN voluntarily agreed to supply at no cost, see:

  

http://www.ntia.doc.gov/page/iana-functions-purchase-order

And in particular:

  

  http://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/sf_26_pg_1-2-final_award_and_sacs.pdf 

 

If the US government were to decide to renew the Purchase Order after 30 September, ICANN would not be legally obliged to agree to it.  Legally, ICANN could decide not respond to the purchase order, and continue to provide the IANA functions as it has since its creation.

 

As we all know, the ICANN community, the RIRs, the IETF, etc. all support ICANN continuing to provide the IANA functions, under the new bylaws.

 

So who cares what the US government does or does not do?

 

Apparently everybody.  But why?  No doubt because everybody knows that, in practice, the US government can take steps to prevent ICANN from continuing to provide the IANA function independently if the US government does not want it to be independent.

 

And this because ICANN is based in the US and therefore subject to US jurisdiction.  

 

Anybody that doubts that the US government could make trouble if ICANN were to declare independence against the wish of the US government might wish to recall what happened back in 1998 when Jon Postel tried to make IANA independent despite the US government’s unilateral assertion of control. The story is recounted in Milton Mueller’s book Ruling the Root and I have heard it myself from various reliable sources.  Essentially, it was made clear to Jon that it wasn’t worth the risk.  (The versions that I have heard are that Jon did that because he was disappointed that the US government had rejected the IAHC recommendations and decided to impose a different solution: ICANN, but I didn’t get that from Jon himself, so perhaps it is not true). A summary of this story is at:

 

  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jon_Postel#DNS_Root_Authority_test.2C_U.S._response 

 

So the fact that ICANN is in the US does make a difference. Some think that it is good that the US in is the US, others disagree. But I don’t see how anybody could say that it makes no difference.  I do agree that the issue arises with respect to any particular national jurisdiction, but recall that various proposals have been made for ICANN to be given some form of jurisdictional immunity. And this does not necessarily require a treaty. It can be done by any state, including the US, as a unilateral matter.

 

Best,

Richard

 

 

From: Chapter-delegates [mailto:chapter-delegates-bounces at elists.isoc.org] On Behalf Of Greg Wood
Sent: vendredi, 23. septembre 2016 00:45
To: chapter-delegates at elists.isoc.org
Subject: [Chapter-delegates] Internet Society Applauds US Senate for Saying #yestoIANA

 

Hello,

 

For your reference, this text has been published on the Internet Society website and is being shared broadly.

 

-Greg


https://www.internetsociety.org/news/internet-society-applauds-us-senate-saying-yestoiana


Internet Society Applauds US Senate for Saying #yestoIANA


The Internet Society applauds Senators on both sides of the aisle for evaluating the transition of the oversight of the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) functions to the global Internet community on the facts rather than inaccurate rhetoric. We thank Majority Leader McConnell and his staff for recognizing the implications of blocking the multistakeholder consensus of the ICANN community on the transition.

It is important for Congress to ensure that any final Continuing Resolution does not delay or block the transition. A delay could actually increase – not decrease – the possibility of international government control of the Internet and will signal to the global community that we do not believe in the multistakeholder model of governance. 

This transition has been built upon a bipartisan consensus for almost twenty years through multiple Administrations. The time has finally arrived to remove the last direct United States governmental role in ICANN's operation. The Internet Society believes that the transition will further strengthen the Internet as a stable, resilient and secure tool for empowering billions of people across the globe for decades to come. We urge the Congress to say  <https://www.internetsociety.org/america-keeps-its-promises-yestoiana> #yestoIANA.

Kathryn Brown
President & CEO

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/private/chapter-delegates/attachments/20160923/6cd45ab5/attachment.htm>