[Internal-cg] Questions from webinars

[Mueller, Milton L]

Jean-Jacques:

> -----Original Message-----
> way around. While the Internet is an infrastructure, it can also be seen, and
> even used, as a political tool. In this sense, it would be fair to recognize that,
> while unlikely under present circumstances, IN PURELY LEGAL TERMS the PTI
> construct would remain in the US jurisdiction, which in turn would leave open
> the possibility that the authorities in Washington might, in some specific
> cases, wish to weigh upon the operational functions.

I agree that we need to avoid being Pollyana-ish about these answers, we need to tell it like it is and most importantly, respond to the questions that people are actually asking. So here, J-J has put his finger on the question that most people who ask this question about jurisdiction actually have, namely could Washington interfere with PTI (or ICANN) because of its presence in US jurisdiction? 

The answer is complex, I am not sure how to address this concern simply. Point 1 is that it our current language, ableit a bit awkward, is correct, California law simply creates a corporation, and the direction and policies and governance of that corporation are up to the board, SOs, ACs and member. Point 2: any interference by the U.S. federal government would require a complicated and difficult legislative process to create new authority that it currently doesn't have. Such a move would encounter a lot of political (and perhaps even legal) resistance. Point 3 is that it has to be incorporated somewhere, which means that regardless of jurisdiction, some government is going to be in a position to at least try to interfere, and in countries with less stable rule of law this would be easier than in the U.S. Point 4 is that political interference, from Washington or anywhere else, is most likely to target policy rather than "operational functions" and thus separating PTI from ICANN is a Good Thing for that reason. Any attempt to dictate what PTI can do by Washington could motivate a change of IANA functions operator, as the IFR process and people are not controlled by the US.