[Internal-cg] Questions from webinars

[Subrenat, Jean-Jacques]

Hello Joe,

thanks for pointing out a problem posed by the wording ("weigh upon the operational functions"). 

I wanted to convey to ICG colleagues remarks heard over the years in various regions. Beyond the acknowledgment that the Internet was developed mainly by and in the US, expectations arose about a gradual "internationalization".

This is the context in which I mentioned an "unlikely" hypothesis, not of direct interference in operational matters, but as a consequence of possible administrative, legal or political problems, which might then have an indirect impact on operations. 

By the way, I was making a comment, not proposing drafting.

Best regards,
Jean-Jacques. 

 

----- Mail original -----
De: "joseph alhadeff" <joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com>
À: internal-cg at ianacg.org
Envoyé: Jeudi 13 Août 2015 12:06:16
Objet: Re: [Internal-cg] Questions from webinars

Jean Jacques:

The existence of the company in the US provides US legal jurisdiction 
for legal disputes and questions of law but confers no oversight role, 
so please explain how it provides an opportunity to "weigh upon 
operational functions" that are not illegal or the subject of a lawsuit 
in the jurisdiction?

Thanks-

Joe

On 8/13/2015 2:21 AM, Subrenat, Jean-Jacques wrote:
> Agree with Lynn and others on these improvements. It's good to have provided a link to the CCWG recommendations.
>
> Jurisdiction: for a non-US citizen or entity, the distinction between "policy and operational aspects of the IANA functions" and "questions of corporate performance" is correct only to a certain point. It would be like saying that Internet governance is only politics and has no technical aspects, or the other 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.
>
> As a former member of the ICANN Board who took an active part in drafting of the "Improving Institutional Confidence" recommendations, and also in the Board discussions leading to the Affirmation of Commitments, I feel that the degree of clarity I am advocating would best serve the community, but would also contribute to lifting doubts about the motivations for Transition.
>
> Jean-Jacques.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ----- Mail original -----
> De: "Lynn St.Amour" <Lynn at LStAmour.org>
> À: "IANA etc etc Coordination Group" <internal-cg at ianacg.org>
> Envoyé: Jeudi 13 Août 2015 00:33:26
> Objet: Re: [Internal-cg] Questions from webinars
>
> Thanks much to Joe, Milton, Martin, and Kavouss for their suggestions.  I incorporated these as best as possible while trying to maintain an appropriate level of brevity.  Kavouss, I would like to link to the sections of text you call out as they are quite detailed and come from the CCWG-Accountability work and not one of the OC proposals directly.  Please review the edited text and let me know if it works.
>
> Milton,  I incorporated your suggestions, and note that many of them focused heavily on USG-ICANN related changes (not surprising given it is a transition :-) ).   I believe we should also take advantage of this opportunity to better inform the world of the key roles played in all the OC's, (as this aspect is really not well understood), so I left some of that text in.   Look forward to hearing from others as I admit to being pretty wedded to informing on all OC's :-).
>
> There is also one question on the role of the PTI in oversight, that would be aided by further review.
>
> Also, posted to Dropbox.
>
> Best,
> Lynn
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Aug 12, 2015, at 12:33 PM, "Mueller, Milton L" <milton.mueller at pubpolicy.gatech.edu> wrote:
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>>> So I would suggest the opening sentence should read, "PTI and ICANN will have a
>>> contract, and the process for setting the funding level for PTI's operations will be
>>> specified in this contract."
>> Martin's amendments to the wording here are welcome and fine with me:
>>
>>> Not being familiar with the gTLD world, could you explain to me what
>>> "... registrars who use the IANA functions" means?
>> Heh. We all use the IANA functions, Martin, some of us just use them more indirectly than others. Seriously, though, one could just delete "who use the IANA functions" from my proposed change.
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Internal-cg mailing list
> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org
>
> _______________________________________________
> Internal-cg mailing list
> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org


_______________________________________________
Internal-cg mailing list
Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org