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

Avri Doria <> Wed, 14 October 2015 11:26 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0BB201A015F for <>; Wed, 14 Oct 2015 04:26:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 1.465
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.465 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665] autolearn=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id XmY0rs5EwAbr for <>; Wed, 14 Oct 2015 04:26:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2B5601A0262 for <>; Wed, 14 Oct 2015 04:26:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ([]) by (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id t9EBQTDD022309 for <>; Wed, 14 Oct 2015 07:26:29 -0400
Received: (qmail 16547 invoked by uid 0); 14 Oct 2015 11:26:29 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO ? ( by 0 with ESMTPA; 14 Oct 2015 11:26:29 -0000
References: <> <> <> <>
From: Avri Doria <>
Organization: Technicalities
Message-ID: <>
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2015 07:26:21 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.3.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 151013-1, 10/13/2015), Outbound message
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Ianaplan] What's happening at ICANN?
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: Wed, 14 Oct 2015 11:26:36 -0000


I have no strong convictions about whether the IETF is an UA or not. 
I did not think it was, but if you think it is, then it might just well be.
So congratulations, IETF can both sue and be sued.

All I was trying to say was IETF had a binding appeals tracks that ICANN
does not have.


On 13-Oct-15 14:30, Donald Eastlake wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 2:05 PM, Avri Doria <>; wrote:
>> Hi,
>> One essential difference is that IETF has an appeal mechanism on process
>> to the Internet Society Board of Trustees.
>> This is the backstop for the IETF.
>> From what I have learned in the ICANN Accountability process, the most
>> legal training I have ever had, the IETF as the IETF might have trouble
>> suing anyone given that is is not a legal person.  Fortunately the IETF
>> does not live in an environment where suits, of either kind, are the norm.
> Even though I'm right and what you and lots of other people believe is
> wrong :-) I don't usually both to point that out. It is usually not
> worth the effort to argue with people having very strong convictions.
> But either the IETF is just part of the ISOC, which is a corporation
> and can obviously sue or be sued, or the IETF is a separate
> unincorporated non-profit association.
> In the United States, unincorporated non-profit associations have
> legal existence and can sue and be sued. To take examples from
> business and labor, for over 150 years the New York Stock Exchange was
> an unincorporated association having numerous employees and contracts
> as wel as the occasional lawsuit, until sometime in the 1950s when it
> incorporated and it only did that then to get the advantage of some US
> Federal tax provisions for pensions that were only available to
> corporations. All or almost all labor unions in the US are
> unincorporated associations (and laws attempting to force them to
> incorporate have been declared to violate the US Constitution as a
> violation of the right of freedom of association). I acted as the
> agent for an unincorporated association which applied for and was
> granted US trademarks (the certificate issued by the US Patent and
> Trademark Office explicit recites that the organization is a "US
> unincorporated association").
> The often repeated claim the the IETF does not legally exist is and
> always has been just plain wrong.
> Thanks,
> Donald
> =============================
>  Donald E. Eastlake 3rd   +1-508-333-2270 (cell)
>  155 Beaver Street, Milford, MA 01757 USA
>> avri
>> On 10-Oct-15 12:57, Soininen, Jonne (Nokia - FI/Espoo) wrote:
>>> Hi Brian,
>>> like Bernard and Dave said, part of the story is the press tries to spin
>>> an interesting story. Partly the story is that there are strong emotions
>>> in play at the ICANN in this topic.
>>> So, the topic is ICANN accountability. The claim is that as long as there
>>> was the NTIA contract on IANA there has been a backstop on ICANN's
>>> decisions, especially the board's. The theory is that if ICANN (the staff
>>> and the board, not the community) would do something silly NTIA could at
>>> least threaten to take IANA away and pressure ICANN to reconsider the
>>> decision get to the right path. However, with the IANA stewardship
>>> transition there would be no backstop anymore and potentially a future
>>> board could go rogue and do whatever they want disregarding the community.
>>> Therefore, there needs to be new accountability mechanisms.
>>> The main accountability mechanisms discussed have been spilling the
>>> complete board, removing a board member and control/veto the ICANN budget
>>> and bylaws changes. There is pretty much consensus that in some form or
>>> another these are reasonable requirements. However, the discussion is
>>> about what is the right enforceability mechanism. Enforcement means how
>>> can you legally enforce ICANN/board do something - basically, how can you
>>> sue ICANN if the board/staff doesn't do what the community expects it to
>>> do.
>>> In the IETF, we have a bit different approach to these things. I wouldn't
>>> think we would have ever the discussion the IETF community should be able
>>> to take the IESG or IAB to court. Interesting thought, though... ;)
>>> I hope this helps.
>>> Cheers,
>>> Jonne.
>> ---
>> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
>> _______________________________________________
>> Ianaplan mailing list
> _______________________________________________
> Ianaplan mailing list

This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.