Indeed, there is no definitive determination as to whether property is involved. And as we are all aware of the keen importance of IP to the digital realm, let's also remember that 21st century property can be quite intangible. Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597/Direct 202-559-8750/Fax 202-255-6172/Cell Twitter: @VLawDC "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey Sent from my iPad
On May 21, 2016, at 2:51 PM, Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> wrote:
Indeed, the only neutral assessment I know of (from 2000) says that the property issue is indeterminate:
"The question of whether the Department [of Commerce] has the authority to transfer control of the authoritative root server to ICANN is a difficult one to answer. Although control over the authoritative root server is not based on any statute or international agreement, the government has long been instrumental in supporting and developing the Internet and the domain name system. The Department has no specific statutory obligations to manage the domain name system or to control the authoritative root server. It is uncertain whether transferring control would also include transfer of government property to a private entity. Determining whether there is government property may be difficult. To the extent that transition of the management control to a private entity would involve the transfer of government property, it is unclear if the Department has the requisite authority to effect such a transfer."
Robert P. Murphy, General Counsel, "Department of Commerce: Relationship with the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers Government Accountability Office," July 7, 2000, B-284206, http://www.gao.gov/new.items/og00033r.pdf
As Nigel said, a pending court case may (or may not) resolve the issue with some authority. And I have been told that an internal Departmental analysis (which, to the best of my knowledge, has not been made public) supports the proposition that the transition may occur. Meanwhile, GAO is in the midst of another study that has yet to be concluded. Perhaps someone can point me to an authoritative determination that the property question is "completely discredited."
Regards Paul
Paul Rosenzweig paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com O: +1 (202) 547-0660 M: +1 (202) 329-9650 VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 www.redbranchconsulting.com My PGP Key
-----Original Message----- From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Nigel Roberts Sent: Saturday, May 21, 2016 12:38 PM To: accountability-cross-community@icann.org Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] latest letter from Cruz et al FYI
And indeed, the Weinstein case is likely to provide a large step towards clarifying.
If the TLD of Iran is ruled to be property under US (irrespective of whether it's ATTACHABLE property) then exactly as set out by Postel in 881/882 the same rationale will apply both below and above it in the DNS tree.
On 21/05/16 17:21, Dr Eberhard W Lisse wrote: Dear Co-Chairs,
if I were corresponding with this man I would point out to him that the property claim has never been settled other than in his mind, perhaps.
greetings, el
On 2016-05-21 17:09 , Mueller, Milton L wrote: [...] completely discredited arguments (such as the "government property" claim, [...]
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community