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

[Dan Steinberg <dstein@travel-net.com>]

Also speaking as a non-US citizen and non US-resident and as
someone who has never worked for the US government in any
capacity (but reserves the right to do so in the future), I
have a few comments to add.

Masataka Ohta wrote:
> 
> Brian;
> 
> > Speaking as a non-US citizen and non-US resident:
> 
> Thank you.
> 
> > I too had doubts about whether the new legal entity protecting the
> > IANA should be a non-profit corporation under US law.
> 
> > However I am a pragmatist and I think most of us here are pragmatists.
> 
> As a pragmatist, I don't have much doubt that IANA corporation
> under US law can operate stably.
> 
> > We all agree that it is *above all* important to have technical
> > continuity and leave the technical staff of the IANA in peace to
> > do their work.
> 
> Incorporation is, by no means, technical.

Agreed.  However it is necessary to assure a platform for
the technical continuity we all desire, just as it is
useless in an IT shop to attempt to tune a database if the
server is crashing and/or might be moved to a different
department.
> 
> > There is, given the time available before September 30,
> > only one way to achieve this: a non-profit corporation in California.
> 
> Why do you think new corporation necessary?
> 
> If we don't have time, IANA can be a department of ISOC, which is
> already incorporated. For the stability, then, ISOC itself should be
> relocated to, say, Geneve, as soon as possible.

If it were as easy as this, there would have been no need
for a White Paper, Green Paper, terabytes of e-mail,
lawsuits, meetings, media campaigns, etc.  Like it or not,
the US govt. has authority over certain assets.  

Like it or not, (see Karl Auerbach's analysis at 
http://www.cavebear.com/nsf-dns/ ) has given credence to the
notion that the .com database is proprietary information.

It is important to remember that the net is edge-controlled,
although the phenomena of inertia gives it the appearance of
central control.  If there is not a broad movement towards
consensus, those unhappy with the result will assert edge
control, file lawsuits, petition congress to block the
transfer of assets, etc.  I think most participants would
rather keep the net edge-controlled with the appearance of
central control.  It would be a pain for everyone to have to
make decisions on the their root cache.  Or we could all
undo the past few years work and go back to editing
hosts.txt <g>.

There is nothing we can do to prevent any of the above from
happening.  However, we *can* make it apparent through
working openly towards consensus that those who choose to be
left out are marginal uncooperative interests.  If we don't,
then...
> 
> > There is no practical alternative, so let us concentrate on the only
> > real issue left, which is getting an initial Board of Directors with
> > sufficient honour and neutrality.
> 
> What's wrong with ISOC BoT?
> 
>                                                 Masataka Ohta


Dan Steinberg
MBA LLB BSc		

SYNTHESIS:Law & Technology
Box 532, RR1		phone: (613) 794-5356
Chelsea, Quebec		fax:   (819) 827-4398
J0X 1N0			e-mail:dstein@travel-net.com