Re: [Ianaplan] comments on draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-response-01

[Andrew Sullivan <[e-mail]>]

On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 08:59:35AM +0200, Richard Hill wrote:
> 
> I was under the impression that that text reflected our discussions during the audio conference.  But perhaps my impression is not correct.
> 

It certainly reflects what some people wanted at the interim.  I
argued then, and I argue now, that this level of specification isn't
something we want.  I am prepared to be in the rough, of course, like
anyone else.  So,

> substantive about jurisdiction. So, if the above text is not
> acceptable to all

we don't need text acceptable to all.  We need text that's achieves
rough consensus.

> "The IAOC is asked to conclude a supplemental agreement regarding
> jurisdiction and any necessary dispute resolution mechanisms, taking
> into account that it may be preferable to specify a neutral
> jurisdiction such as arbitration in Switzerland."

It may be preferable also to specify jurisdictions where any of the
bodies are incorporated, to the extent they are, also.  So if we're
going to include instructions to get an agreement about jurisdiction
and dispute resolution, then I am very strongly opposed to specifying
what jurisdiction that ought to be.  I don't think the WG should get
into that kind of instructing of the IAOC.  Also, see below.

>  "Further, the IAOC is asked to consider whether it would be
> appropriate for the IANA function to be legally domiciled in a
> neutral jurisdiction such as Switzerland, possibily with immunity of
> jurisdiction."

I think that's completely off-topic for this, and it's also clearly
outside our charter since it would be a major change to the existing
arrangements and our charter tells us not to do that: "This working
group is chartered solely with respect to the planning needed for the
transition, and is not meant to cover other topics related to
IANA. Possible improvements outside that scope will be set aside for
future consideration."  The recommendation of jurisdiction in the
first proposal also seems to me to be in violation of that term.

Best regards,

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
[e-mail]