Re: [Ianaplan] A draft for your review

"Richard Hill" <> Tue, 02 September 2014 08:08 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 29FB51A00E8 for <>; Tue, 2 Sep 2014 01:08:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.002
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.002 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_40=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id cFgYLUzN15gQ for <>; Tue, 2 Sep 2014 01:08:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:1600:2:5:92b1:1cff:fe01:18cc]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C7ECD1A00C6 for <>; Tue, 2 Sep 2014 01:08:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from Laurie ( []) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s82884vU012715; Tue, 2 Sep 2014 10:08:04 +0200
From: Richard Hill <>
To: Brian E Carpenter <>, Miles Fidelman <>
Date: Tue, 02 Sep 2014 10:07:54 +0200
Message-ID: <>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0)
In-Reply-To: <>
Importance: Normal
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.6157
Subject: Re: [Ianaplan] A draft for your review
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IANA Plan <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 02 Sep 2014 08:08:11 -0000

Please see embedded comments below.

Thanks and best,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ianaplan []On Behalf Of Brian E
> Carpenter
> Sent: mardi, 2. septembre 2014 05:36
> To: Miles Fidelman
> Cc:
> Subject: Re: [Ianaplan] A draft for your review
> On 02/09/2014 14:55, Miles Fidelman wrote:
> > Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> >> On 02/09/2014 03:22, Richard Hill wrote:
> >> ...
> >>
> >>
> >>
> > Since it's the NTIA contract that grants ICANN the authority to perform
> > the IANA functions, of course it has precedence.
> Sorry, that's a non sequitur. A corporation surely acts according to its
> Articles of Incorporation and its By-Laws, and they (probably
> intentionally)
> make no reference to the US Government or any of its agencies,
> and certainly
> not to the NTIA contract.

Correct.  That was not necessary because ICANN was the "new corporation"
referred to in the White Paper, so it was understood that the NTIA Policy
Statement was the guiding instrument.

>ICANN will not cease to exist, nor will its
> charitable purposes change, when that contract lapses.

I disagree with the last part of the statement above.  ICANN's purpose will
definitely change because, at present, its purpose is conditioned by the
mandate from NTIA, and in particular that rather stringent provisions of the
IANA Functions contract.

Once that contract lapses, the conditions lapse (unless they are restated

More importantly, as stated by NTIA itself in its statement on the
transition, ICANN will no longer be subject to US government oversight (or
"stewardship", if you prefer), so it will become the overall authority for
all the matters covered by its mission statement, which includes protocol

> There was absolutely no consensus in 1998 that NTIA had any authority to
> grant ICANN such authority anyway.

Nice to hear you say that.

>At the time, everybody involved managed
> to hold their noses because ICANN had to be bootstrapped somehow and
> there was nothing to be gained by fighting the White House.

And, reportedly, some thought that the government might initiate legal
proceedings to prove that they did inteed have authority.

> > Now, one might argue
> > that the contract is in breach, because ICANN signed a contract that's
> > in violation of its by-laws, in which case.... <what?>.  But, just
> > because ICANN's bylaws says that it has the authority, doesn't mean it
> > does.
> True. Which is why the IAB and IETF worked hard to get an MoU signed,
> to consolidate the above bootstrap. Personally, I felt that ICANN was
> on very shaky ground until 10 March 2000 when its Board ratified
> the MoU. Until that moment, the IETF and IAB could have walked away
> in a heartbeat. There were off-shore copies of all the existing
> IANA allocations just in case.

Yes.  But, as I heard the story, another element was that it was felt that
the risk of explicit and forceful US government intervention was not work

>    Brian
> _______________________________________________
> Ianaplan mailing list