Fadi Chehade Written Responses to Senate Questions
I thought the attached would be of interest. These can be found at https://www.icann.org/resources/correspondence/1188647-2015-04-13-en. I note these include responses relating to the AoC and the US "jurisdiction" issue. Greg Shatan
Thanks Greg. I found the document to be very illuminating, not so much for Fadi's answers but for the questions being asked by members of Congress. Of all the questions that could be asked they really do seem to be focused on the question of HQ location. I thought Senator Blunt's mention of the first amendment was interesting: as a private corporation ICANN is not generally required to offer such protections although if it were to be considered a government contractor, which arguably it currently is, there are first amendment responsibilities that do attach. As ICANN's status as a government contractor would presumably end with termination of the IANA contract should we be looking more closely at the implications this would have on speech provisions? In terms of accountability I'm most concerned with the terminations impact on staff's speech rights, which US courts have held are greater for employees of government contractors than for purely private employers. Is this something we should be looking at in this group? Are there any other first amendment issues that change when ICANN's relationship with the USG changes post transition? Sorry for the questions without answers but better to be asked now by us than by a U.S. Senator later. Thanks, Ed Morris Sent from my iPhone
On Apr 20, 2015, at 5:45 AM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
I thought the attached would be of interest. These can be found at https://www.icann.org/resources/correspondence/1188647-2015-04-13-en.
I note these include responses relating to the AoC and the US "jurisdiction" issue.
Greg Shatan <chehade-to-thune-13apr15-en.pdf> _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
On 20/04/2015 10:39, Edward Morris wrote:
Thanks Greg. I found the document to be very illuminating, not so much for Fadi's answers but for the questions being asked by members of Congress. Of all the questions that could be asked they really do seem to be focused on the question of HQ location.
Chairman Thune asked a question on HQ location, and a question about the Jones Day advice this group received. Senator Blunt asked a question on HQ location that he related specifically to the protection of free speech, a question on the evaluation of community-based applications for gTLDs, two questions related to the protection of intellectual property rights, a question about the same Jones Day advice, and ten further questions broadly about post-transition accountability commitments, structures and mechanisms. Senator Daines asked one question, which was about how ICANN addressed illegal activity by registrants. I didn't see the oral hearing, but I wouldn't characterise this written document as 'Of all the questions that could be asked they really do seem to be focused on the question of HQ location.'. Kind Regards, Malcolm. -- Malcolm Hutty | tel: +44 20 7645 3523 Head of Public Affairs | Read the LINX Public Affairs blog London Internet Exchange | http://publicaffairs.linx.net/ London Internet Exchange Ltd 21-27 St Thomas Street, London SE1 9RY Company Registered in England No. 3137929 Trinity Court, Trinity Street, Peterborough PE1 1DA
Hello Malcolm,
I didn't see the oral hearing, but I wouldn't characterise this written document as 'Of all the questions that could be asked they really do seem to be focused on the question of HQ location.'.
Three Senators asked written questions post hearing. The lead question for two of the three Senators focused on the location of ICANN's headquarters. This after the oral hearing in which Fadi assured the Senators that ICANN's jurisdiction would remain in the United Stares. To me, this suggests a focus of the Senate Commerce committee on the location of ICANN's headquarters. Representative Sean Duffy has compiled a list of questions relating to the transition which he has transmitted to the Chair of the House Judiciary Committee concurrently requesting House hearings on the matter. A copy of that letter is attached. Please note that here, again, concerns regarding First Amendment protections post transition are expressed, specifically "What First Amendment functions will there be should IANA functions transition to ICANN?". Notwithstanding the assumption regarding the loci of the transition I'd suggest this is something we do need to further discuss in the context of our accountability efforts. Best, Ed Morris
+1 As a non lawyer and non US citizen I agree with Senator Blunt, against the opinion of some US lawyers in this list....so at least I don't feel alone anymore. Have a nice week Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez +506 8837 7176 (New Number) Enviado desde mi iPhone
El abr 20, 2015, a las 3:39, Edward Morris <egmorris1@toast.net> escribió:
Thanks Greg. I found the document to be very illuminating, not so much for Fadi's answers but for the questions being asked by members of Congress. Of all the questions that could be asked they really do seem to be focused on the question of HQ location.
I thought Senator Blunt's mention of the first amendment was interesting: as a private corporation ICANN is not generally required to offer such protections although if it were to be considered a government contractor, which arguably it currently is, there are first amendment responsibilities that do attach. As ICANN's status as a government contractor would presumably end with termination of the IANA contract should we be looking more closely at the implications this would have on speech provisions? In terms of accountability I'm most concerned with the terminations impact on staff's speech rights, which US courts have held are greater for employees of government contractors than for purely private employers. Is this something we should be looking at in this group? Are there any other first amendment issues that change when ICANN's relationship with the USG changes post transition?
Sorry for the questions without answers but better to be asked now by us than by a U.S. Senator later.
Thanks,
Ed Morris
Sent from my iPhone
On Apr 20, 2015, at 5:45 AM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
I thought the attached would be of interest. These can be found at https://www.icann.org/resources/correspondence/1188647-2015-04-13-en.
I note these include responses relating to the AoC and the US "jurisdiction" issue.
Greg Shatan <chehade-to-thune-13apr15-en.pdf> _______________________________________________ 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
participants (4)
-
"Carlos Raúl G." -
Edward Morris -
Greg Shatan -
Malcolm Hutty