> > > The Green Paper was full of detailed policies. The White Paper is
> > > almost empty. Everything is left to the IANA corporation to decide,
> >
> > The IANA corporation of the WP?
> >
> > Doesn't it mean that the US local IANA corporation decide the
> > important details with the detailed restriction by US local laws?
>
> In theory, that could happen. In practice I don't think it will
> matter, any more than I think it matters that CORE is headquartered
> in Switzerland.
The legal systems are THE practical system.
> It is very hard to separate national pride from the practical reality
> in this issue.
It's not an issue of pride.
It is one thing that new IANA is incorporated in US.
It is another thing that new IANA is formed as an organization based
on a new or exsiting international convention and its headquater is
located in US.
If it is an issue of pride, IANA, as an international organization,
can be, for example, located in UN building in New York.
> I think that Switzerland would be a much better
> choice than the US, because it has a reputation for international
> organizations that makes it a little easier to live with. But in
> practical terms the place of incorporation doesn't matter much.
In practice, IANA MUST be protected from local leagal systems.
> Further, it can be changed.
Really?
Then, why don't we relocate IANA immediately?
> > Or, can a US-local congress pass a special law to allow US local
> > IANA do anything?
>
> The WP explicitly disavows special legal provisions for IANAcorp. It
> is dimly possible that Congress will feel compelled to get in the
> act, but it would be going against the WP if it did -- that is, it
> would be operating at odds with the Clinton administration, and at
> odds with a Gore administration, if one comes about.
The juristical issue needs long term solution. Clinton or Gore
administration, even if it were good enough, won't last forever.
It, either, can't protect IANA from US court or so infamous US
lawyers.
> There are no certainties here, of course. Things look better now than
> they did a few weeks ago. But they are still a long way from perfect.
>From the international point of view, I can see absolutely no
improvement in the proposal of USG itself. It continues to be US
centric in the worst sense of the word.
However, now with the WP, isn't it quite difficult, if not impossible,
for USG to sue Jon Postel that we can completely ignore USG and
continue the MoU process which is already blessed by Jon Postel.
Masataka Ohta