Re: [Ianaplan] What's happening at ICANN?

[Seth Johnson <[e-mail]>]

The US was probably alluding to things like what they are apparently
starting now -- meddling in these areas via international acts, where
they actually can.

On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 3:49 PM, John C Klensin <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>
> --On Monday, October 19, 2015 18:32 +0000 John Levine
> <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>>> The "more technical" areas have had the ability to operate in
>>> that way because they are in a stewardship context where
>>> governmental inroads have been proscribed.
>>
>> You keep saying this.  Could you provide a pointer to the
>> relevant section of the law, please?
>
> John, thanks.
>
> Seth, at best, "proscribed" is a little strong.  It was made
> very clear during the organization/creation of ICANN that the US
> Govt could (and would) intervene in the protocol and numbering
> areas if they felt a need to do that.  One can attribute their
> very light hand in those areas to any of their perception that
> things are working well, that the serious and high-visibility
> politics lie closer to domain name, that the disagreements about
> success criteria I mentioned earlier have impacts in this area
> as well, that the ICANN and its staff have been more active and
> interventionist in the names area and hence require more
> supervision, that John's comments about where the money flows
> are relevant, and perhaps other reasons.  It is clear that there
> have been very few direct or indirect government interventions
> in recent years in the protocol parameter and numbering areas,
> but, despite all the noise, there haven't been many
> interventions in the names area either.
>
> But "proscribed"? I don't think so and, like John, I'd like to
> see citations of law or anything else of substance.
>
>     john
>
>
>
>