Re: newIANA (was Fram behind closed doors via opaque channels)

[Masataka Ohta <mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>]

Vint;

> my impression is that the WP was pretty open about the
> leadership/oversight of the new IANA and only recommended
> that the organization be incorporated in the US. 

The WP is fuzzy to allow various implementations including that
described in the GP. However, the exception is that, it explicitely
says:

	As these functions are now performed in the United States, by
	U.S. residents, and to ensure stability, the new corporation
	should be headquartered in the United States, and incorporated
	in the U.S. as a not-for-profit corporation. 

> Is the site of incorporation an issue in your view?

Why do you say "incorporation"?

Is it already determined in your view that there should be incorporation?

In my view, *IF* incorporation is necessary, the site of incorporation
is not so much an issue, unless the site is located in a country
hostile to the development of the Internet.

Now, let's see the reality.

US courts make it impossible to stably administrate DNS name space.

Worse, through the GP and WP activity, USG has demonstrated its will
and capability to influence over the action of US local organizations
such as ISI to interfere the healthy development of the international
Internet.

A statement by USG in the WP:

	Moreover, incorporation in the United States is not intended
	to supplant or displace the laws of other countries where
	applicable.

is meaningless.

Such a statement can be valid with certain stability only when US
supreme court judges so, but only until special laws are created by US
congress against the judgement.

And, remember, USG keeps saying that US congress can do it worse than
the GP.

							Masataka Ohta