Re: PAB POC report

Amadeu Abril i Abril (
Mon, 08 Jun 1998 12:52:15 +0200

Masataka Ohta wrote:
> Kent;

> > > 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.

Yes, but US law will essentially govern the internal relationships of tthe new
corporation, not necessarily the relationships between nIANA and other
entities. Most probably (and hopefully) not the relationships between
registries, registrars and registrants, or among registrants.
> > 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.

I'd prfer it baed anywhere according to an internatinal convention. Now, how
long would it take? Years, not months. And we need some stability now. So as a
first step i see no problem with nIANA incorporated according to US law.
Indeed I would neither see a problem if its is incorporated in Switzerland,
UK, or Andorra. I know very little of japanese corporate law but i be t that
it would also be a perfectly reasonable choice.
> If it is an issue of pride, IANA, as an international organization,
> can be, for example, located in UN building in New York.

UN? Yeah, one of the fastest-moving organizations around. How long would it
take? (I insist: I agree with you in principle, but I'm willing to accept
other solutions that provide some stability in a relatively short period of
time, even if those solutions are inferior ones).
> > 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.

This is nearly impossible to achieve without UN-agency status. And, again,
this is probalby not for this century.
> > Further, it can be changed.
> Really?
> Then, why don't we relocate IANA immediately?

Probably because:

*Nobody wants to clam the game down
*Jon Postel most likely does not want to relocate himself (and he is the
cornerstone of stability and historical legitimazion that nIANA so
desperatlely will need)
*For the same reason that there is no convincing reason for having nIANA in
the US, it is also difficult to find a perfectly and unviersally acceptable
alternative location
*One of the best alternatives, possibly the best, Switzerland, has strong
implications in this process. I'ts CORE. It's been the center of an absurd and
insulting debate among some narrow-minded US citizens with specific roles in
this games. It will cause now more problems that it will help to solve.
> > > 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.
Yes, but not White House or USGov-centirc. And this is a lot of progress form
the GP. And most of the problems you, Kent and myself resent on this int'l
dimension will be solved if we can really make sure that the new Board of
Directors is really global in base and scope.

> 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.
Better never make guesses on the likelihood of a lawsuit in the US. They love
lawsuits more than biscuits ;-)