> > > > 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.
Huh? Not necessarily?
US local law, of course, governs every activity of US local
IANA including its relationships to and other entities.
> Most probably (and hopefully) not the relationships between
> registries, registrars and registrants, or among registrants.
Are you suggesting that there should be multiple name spaces
and multiple registries?
If not, there is only one name space managed by IANA.
> > 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.
You may be assuming that incorporation is necessary immediately.
I don't.
> Now, how
> long would it take? Years, not months. And we need some stability now.
The stability is here with gTLD-MoU cooperated with ITU, the international
body for telecommunication issues based on existing international
convention.
> So as a
> first step i see no problem with nIANA incorporated according to US law.
The first step was stepped long before.
We, IAHC/PAB/POC, needs only the last few steps.
Without random opinions of US local government, we reached some
stable state monthes ago.
> > 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?
With the help of EC, it won't take so much time. But, incorporation is
not essential.
> (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).
No incorporation is better than bad incorporation.
> > 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.
That's fine.
> > Then, why don't we relocate IANA immediately?
>
> Probably because:
>
> *Nobody wants to clam the game down
Are you saying relocation impossible?
> *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)
Haven't you ever heard a rumour about a world wide computer network,
namely the Internet, with which you can communicate with anywhere
without relocating yourself?
> *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
It's Kent, not me, who suggested relocaiton that ask him for the
appropriate 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.
All I know about CORE is that it is a lot better than a US white house.
> > 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.
>
> ;-)))
Be serious.
> > >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.
Huh? US centric is USG centric.
Have you read trademark section of the WP?
> And this is a lot of progress form
> the GP.
There is no point to compare two wrong things.
> 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.
No. US local corporation can't make decision against US local
government/congress/court.
> > 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 ;-)
If Jon want go abroad, that's fine.
But the issue is not of lawsuit but of whether some officer
in the local government tempted to file a law suit aginst
the whole Internet, even after the miserable failure of
Ira or not.
Masataka Ohta