[NRO-IANAXFER] Internet Number Community IANA Stewardship Proposal: Final Call for Comments

Richard Hill rhill at hill-a.ch
Fri Jan 9 21:08:02 CET 2015


>-----Original Message-----
>From: Seun Ojedeji [mailto:seun.ojedeji at gmail.com]
>Sent: vendredi, 9. janvier 2015 20:29
>To: Richard Hill
>Cc: ianaxfer at nro.net; Izumi Okutani
>Subject: Re: [NRO-IANAXFER] Internet Number Community IANA Stewardship Proposal: Final Call for Comments
>
>sent from Google nexus 4
>kindly excuse brevity and typos.
>On 9 Jan 2015 13:51, "Richard Hill" <rhill at hill-a.ch> wrote:

SNIP

>> > -----Original Message-----
>> > From: Izumi Okutani [mailto:izumi at nic.ad.jp]
>> > Sent: vendredi, 9. janvier 2015 09:42
>> > To: rhill at hill-a.ch; ianaxfer at nro.net
>> > Subject: Re: [NRO-IANAXFER] Internet Number Community IANA
>> > Stewardship Proposal: Final Call for Comments
>> >
>> SNIP
>>
>> I realize that the proposed new contract between NTIA and the RIRs will say
>> the same thing.  But I wonder whether a contract with NTIA somehow carries
>> greater weight than a contract with the RIRs.
>>
>Can I hope you are joking with the statement above @Richard :-)

No, I am not joking. A state has means of enforcing its contracts that are far different from those of private parties.  To begin with, the dispute will normally be heard in an administrative court, not a commercial court.  And the state can pass laws that affect the contract, and take executive actions, etc.

> otherwise I did not know a legally binding contract can differ in the manner
> you described above... 

In theory it should not, but in practice it does.

>Perhaps you care to further explain with scenario/instance
>> What I'm concerned about is that some future ICANN Board might interpret the
>> existing Bylaws to the effect that it is its fiduciary duty to override some
>> RIR policy.  I think we all agree that this is not what is intended.  So my
>> question is whether any changes in the ICANN Bylaws are needed in order to
>> make it perfectly clear that this is not what is intended.
>
>If it is not possible currently then it wouldn't be possible in future.

That's what I'm not convinced of.  NTIA has various means to convince ICANN to interpret its Bylaws in certain ways (even if it has not used those means). The RIRs may lack those means.

I'm not saying that this is necessarily the case, but I am saying that the matter deserves some thought and analysis.

SNIP




More information about the ianaxfer mailing list