Re: [iucg] [ianatransition] Disaster scenarios (was Re: Jurisdiction)

[JFC Morfin <[e-mail]>]

Dear all,

I am familiar with the mathematical theory of catastrophes, physical 
SOC (self-ordering criticality), precision computation and 
probalities. However, IANAL and I am unable to evaluate the 
pertinence of this IAB led legal debate.

Is there a lawyer on this ICANN list who could help us in explaining 
what is the case? the IAB position? What Andrew does not want to 
explain? and the resulting risks for the users?

I must accept that I am lost with the undecidability of the words I 
have put in bold characters. All I grasp is that, should an US Judge 
respect the US law, it might happen, under conditions I am unable to 
identify, that the whole internet might collapse.

This seems to lead to the idea that the internet architecture should 
be updated and become US law-proof. And by the same token law-proof 
to any national legislation. This IAB opinion seems to leave us with 
two options:

1. only the international law applies, but the NTIA  has refused it, 
since it would mean a multilateral agreement and States specific 
involvement (i.e. a part of the WCIT)

2. code is the law. In such a case the code is to be developped along 
some ethic to attain some esthetic. I know two of them:
     - WSIS: the information society (hence its communications) are 
to be people centered.
     - RFC 6852: the target is the huge bounty and innovation 
proceeding from competition.and markets economics.


At 23:36 04/08/2014, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
>Hi,
>
>On Mon, Aug 04, 2014 at 04:59:22PM -0400, Barry Shein wrote:
> >
> > If I were a network appliance manufacturer either I adhere to
> > published standards/registries or should my finances suffer due to
> > this my investors would have good reason to sue and likely win
> > something, perhaps removal of officers or even financial remuneration.
>
>Yes.  But I don't think we're talking about single actors in the
>hypothetical cases we were talking about.  That appears to be what
>you're describing above, and it's certainly not what I meant.
>
>Let's return to the example posited earlier: some US court orders
>ICANN to reallocate an address (contrary to some policy).  The only
>way ICANN can actually do that is to withdraw the entire block it
>allocated to the RIR in question.  Note that, as a practical matter,
>the address would probably be allocated outside ARIN's service area,
>because if it weren't, the order would presumably be against ARIN
>instead.
>
>I believe that, under those circumstances, there is a significant
>probability that the RIRs would decide to ignore the then-current
>implementer of the IANA address policies, and that LIRs and ISPs and
>so on would by and large follow the RIRs (or, I guess we might say in
>this case, the NRO) in the new policies, despite what IANA had to say
>on the matter.
>
>This would be, without any doubt, an extremely bad outcome for
>everyone, in that there'd be a period of global confusion (and
>whatever block of addresses was ordered transferred would be a total
>mess).  But it seems to me that the end result would almost certainly
>be that people would stop using the IANA co-ordination mechanism,
>because it had become corruped by an external power beyond the control
>of participants.  People would come up with a different answer, and
>work out how to co-ordinate it, or else we'd lose the Internet.
>
>There is the possibility, of course, that the same US court would
>order US ISPs and so on to use the US-based IANA and everyone else
>would ditch it.  This would also be very bad, in that there'd be the
>US-model Internet and the everywhere-else model.  It would also be
>entertaining (in the way disaster movies are) to see such a rule
>enforced, but I can imagine someone attempting to do it anyway.
>
>Now, I'm aware that others think that we need some mechanism that will
>guarantee these sorts of disaster can't happen.  I have argued that I
>think that desire can't actually be satisfied (I'm not going to
>rehearse that argument, because I said I wouldn't).
>
>Best regards,
>
>A


I thank every help in order to best understand this.position of the 
IAB representative on this list.
jfc