Ciao Andrea, si il caso di Galveston e’ anche secondo me diverso, piu’ preoccupante perché usato come ricorso politico alla "11th hour" e se ce ne fosse stato bisogno, un esempio in più della necessita di terminare I contratto IANA, per rendere indipendente in DNS. 

A presto, 

Andrea

From: <sama.digitalpolicy@gmail.com> on behalf of Andrea Glorioso <andrea@digitalpolicy.it>
Date: Saturday 1 October 2016 23:43
To: Andrea Beccalli <andrea.beccalli@icann.org>
Cc: "J.C. DE MARTIN" <demartin@polito.it>, Center Nexa <nexa@server-nexa.polito.it>, IGF Italia - Gruppo multistakeholder programma edizione 2016 <2016@igf-italia.it>
Subject: Re: [nexa] il DNS e' indipendente, il contratto USA e' scaduto

Caro Andrea,

Grazie per l'articolo. Interessante, anche se francamente un po' sbilanciato - la Corte di Giustizia dell'UE non è certo l'unica a pronunciarsi su queste materie, per riprendere l'esempio di Uber negli Stati Uniti ci sono state molte pronunce e cause in corso sulla natura e gli obblighi di servizi similari, ma non vedo Politico stracciarsi le vesti...

Poi, per dirsela tutta, trovo più preoccupante che un giudice federale in servizio a Galveston in Texas sia chiamato a pronunciarsi su una questione, come la transizione IANA, su cui governi e altri stakeholder di mezzo mondo hanno lavorato per anni. 

Sono d'accordo comunque che il problema fondamentale sia l'incapacità di molti legislatori di prendersi le proprie responsabilità in maniera seria. 

A presto!

Andrea

On Saturday, October 1, 2016, Andrea Beccalli <andrea.beccalli@icann.org> wrote:

Ciao Andrea, grazie per l’articolo molto interessante! Credo che gli scenari che prospetta di altre cause contro la decisione di NTIA  dipenderanno in gran parte dall’esito delle presidenziali USA. 

Riguardo il ruolo delle Corti nel policy making della sfera digitale sono d’accordo con la tua analisi, ti giro in allegato un articolo[politico.eu] di Poltico che ho mandato anche alla lista IGF Italia qualche giorno fa. Penso che questo ruolo in estremis delle Corti sia anche un sintomo delle difficolta’ delle nostre istituzioni legislative nell’affrontare questioni di Internet Governance. 

Sarebbe interessante raccogliere gli spunti della lista NEXA verso un workshop al prossimo IGF Italia a Venezia? Che ne pensate?

A presto, 

Andrea

From: <sama.digitalpolicy@gmail.com> on behalf of Andrea Glorioso <andrea@digitalpolicy.it>
Date: Saturday 1 October 2016 16:33
To: Andrea Beccalli <andrea.beccalli@icann.org>
Cc: "J.C. DE MARTIN" <demartin@polito.it>, Center Nexa <nexa@server-nexa.polito.it>, IGF Italia - Gruppo multistakeholder programma edizione 2016 <2016@igf-italia.it>
Subject: Re: [nexa] il DNS e' indipendente, il contratto USA e' scaduto

Caro Andrea,

Grazie. È stato un processo molto interessante e non senza alcuni connotati da "soap opera", il che non sorprende in questa "silly season" delle elezioni presidenziali statunitensi. :)

Per completezza, mi permetto di richiamare la vostra attenzione su questo articolo di Berin Szoka, presidente di TechFreedom, uno dei gruppi che si sono opposti strenuamente alla transizione (più precisamente, TechFreedom e altri hanno suggerito una transizione "a due fasi"). Spero lo troverete interessante.

Facendo un passo indietro e analizzando la questione specifica in un'ottica più ampia, a me pare abbastanza chiaro che le Corti (che stiano a Galveston, New York, Strasburgo, Lussemburgo, Roma, o altrove) sono e saranno sempre più chiamate a prendere decisioni con impatti su Internet e la "sfera digitale" che vanno ben al di là dell'oggetto del contendere e con effetti extra-giurisdizionali, a volte globali. Credo sia lecito domandarsi se la "magistratura" (nel senso più ampio e internazionale del termine) sia effettivamente ben preparata a questa responsabilità. So per certo che sia EUROJUST (EU) e il Federal Judicial Center (US) si sono posti questa domanda, e stanno considerando le maniere più appropriate per rafforzare lo scambio di "buone pratiche" a livello transatlantico.

Qualcosa su cui, forse, gli amici di NEXA possono fornire buoni spunti? :)

+++

https://techpolicycorner.org/court-refuses-to-block-iana-transition-94dff8ff1405#.rx5pckssl[techpolicycorner.org]

Court Refuses to Block IANA Transition - But Courts Could Still Reverse Transition

On Wednesday, four state attorneys general sued[docs.techfreedom.org] in federal court to stop the Department of Commerce from ceding its responsibility over the technical heart of the Internet to ICANN, a California non-profit.

Today, after a brief hearing with lawyers on both sides, the judge denied the states’ request for a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO). This means NTIA can proceed with allowing its IANA contract with ICANN to lapse, and also to terminate its Root Zone Management Agreement contract with VeriSign (which requires NTIA to sign off on changes recommended by ICANN to the root zone file, the master database of top level domain names).

This ruling does not, however, resolve the underlying legal questions raised by the states. Nor does it mean the Transition is a done deal. The judge today merely ruled that the states had not shown “irreparable injury” if these two contracts lapsed. This is, in general, a very high bar. But even more than that, letting the contract lapse does not make the Transition permanent: If a court eventually rules that NTIA could not lawfully relinquish its responsibilities, it will essentially be saying that, when the contracts lapsed, control over the Root Zone File remained with NTIA, that ICANN had been exercising control unlawfully in the interim, and that if ICANN would need to negotiate a new contract with NTIA if it wants to continue exercising the IANA functions.

This ruling does not resolve the underlying legal questions raised by the states

Such a declaratory judgment would be easy to enforce: both ICANN and VeriSign are U.S. corporations, and can be enjoined from making any changes to the root without affirmative authorization from NTIA. We will be right back where we started. The contracts, in other words, are a red herring.

Now, how likely is this? The states aren’t likely to give up, but even if they do, the House may still join the fight, as could other intervenors. And even if thislawsuit fizzles, some other plaintiff could raise the issue in the future — and there’s every reason to think that it will come up in litigation between ICANN and the companies that run top level domains or sell second level domains to consumers. There is no statute of limitations on the issues raised by the plaintiffs. This issue could cast a long shadow over ICANN for years until a court finally rules on the merits.

So, how likely is this particular judge to rule in favor of the states on the merits? In general, it’s probably safe to assume that denying a TRO indicates skepticism on the merits, but in this case, it’s worth noting that the Judge, in announcing his decision, expressed his uncertainty about the issue (“some really interesting arguments”, “really made me think”, “but someone has to win”, etc.). More fundamentally, this is a really hard case — and what lawyers would call an issue of first impression: raising questions never before answered by a court.

Most notably, the hearing apparently did not discuss the Ninth Circuit’s 2002 decision in Kremen v. Network Solutions[caselaw.findlaw.com] concerning sex.com[sex.com], which held that property rights are property. Nor did the GAO in its recent report[gao.gov] on the issue. If domain names are property rights, surely Top Level Domain names are, too. And if they are, why isn’t the database that manages them (the Root Zone File)? The point is just that this is a hard question, one my colleague Mike Palage first raised[blog.pff.org] back in 2009 in our work about the then-pending “transition” (to a more relaxed relationship between NTIA and ICANN).

The judge may very well change his mind on the merits after considering this issue more fully. And once he rules on the merits, the decision will go to the Fifth Circuit — still a conservative bastion — on appeal. The issue could go all the way to the Supreme Court, especially if there is a Trump Administration.

This ain’t over til a court (or more than one) rules on the merits.

Open Legal Concerns

To summarize, here are the concerns raised by the states:

1. The U.S. government has long exercised exclusive control over who may edit the Root Zone File that ties together the Internet, and that abandoning this government property right requires Congressional authorization;
2. Absent a firm guarantee that ICANN will protect free speech, converting what has been a public forum into a private one would violate the First Amendment;
3. NTIA violated administrative law by failing to build an adequate record and respond to public comment on the matter;
4. NTIA lacks statutory authority to cede responsibility over the Domain Name System; and
5. By failing to secure U.S. ownership of .GOV, NTIA is tortiously interfering with the contracts that states hold for their .GOV domain names.

The Path Not Taken

Here’s the approach to the issue I urged[nytimes.com] in The New York Times earlier this week:

We should break the transition into two phases.

Phase 1: No government, including ours, should meddle in editing the master database that of top level domain names. The Commerce Department should quickly negotiate a new contract that ends direct U.S. involvement, but retains the ability to reassert that role if necessary. Importantly, this would temporarily preserve what’s always been the most important check on ICANN: Commerce’s right to rebid the transition contract if ICANN misbehaves.

Phase 2: Commerce shouldn’t end the new contract until after a trial period for the new governance model, all accountability measures and other reforms are implemented, and ICANN multistakeholder community is satisfied with the reforms.

I’ve warned all along that having a U.S. court block the transition, or reverse it after the fact, would be the worst case scenario in terms of international backlash, and in poisoning the well for a bipartisan Congressional solution that puts a post-Transition ICANN on the soundest footing possible. I’ve never wanted this issue to become fodder for yet another partisan battle — rather than a debate over the merits. And yet, here we are — as the result of the Administration angrily dismissing honest concerns about the legality of doing the Transition without Congressional approval, and about the ability of multistakeholder community to effectively govern ICANN.

Further Reading

See our other work on the IANA transition, including:

• Essays by Szóka[nytimes.com] and Brett Schaefer[nytimes.com] in The New York Times’ Room for Debate
• Berin Szòka’s testimony[techpolicycorner.org] before the Senate Judiciary Committee on the transition
• Our white paper[techfreedom.org] on the concerns that must be addressed before the IANA transition
• Coalition letter[techpolicycorner.org] urging Congress to temporarily block the IANA transition

About TechFreedom

TechFreedom[techfreedom.org] is a non-profit, non-partisan technology policy think tank. We work to chart a path forward for policymakers towards a bright future where technology enhances freedom, and freedom enhances technology.

And, in case you were wondering, no one has given TechFreedom a dime to work on this issue. We have raised concerns because we actually believe them, not because someone paid us to.

On Saturday, October 1, 2016, Andrea Beccalli <andrea.beccalli@icann.org> wrote:

mi scuso per il cross-posting, inoltro qui un messaggio inviato alla lista IGF Italia 2016.  (Per chi fosse interessato a partecipare alla preparazione dell’IGF Italia 2016, Venezia 14-15 Novembre, può iscriversi mandando una email a 2016@IGF-ITALIA.IT).

Salve a tutti, la transizione delle supervisione USA sulle funzioni IANA di ICANN (la gestione delle risorse critiche del sistema DNS di Internet) e’ completata.

Qui sotto il comunicato stampa del Dipartimento del Commercio USA (NTIA), e a seguire un articolo[bbc.co.uk] interessante della bbc che racconta il processo storico alla base di questo risultato. Chi e’ interessato a saperne di più non esiti a contattarmi. 

Saluti e buon we!

Andrea Beccalli

http://www.ntia.doc.gov/press-release/2016/statement-assistant-secretary-strickling-iana-functions-contract[ntia.doc.gov]

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: 

October 01, 2016

News Media Contact: 

Juliana Gruenwald

Statement from Assistant Secretary for Communications and Information and NTIA Administrator Lawrence E. Strickling:

The federal court in Galveston, Texas denied the plaintiffs' application for declaratory and injunctive relief. As of October 1, 2016, the IANA functions contract has expired.

--

--
I speak only for myself. Sometimes I do not even agree with myself. Keep it in mind.
Twitter: @andreaglorioso
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/andrea.glorioso[facebook.com]
LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=1749288&trk=tab_pro[linkedin.com]

--

--
I speak only for myself. Sometimes I do not even agree with myself. Keep it in mind.
Twitter: @andreaglorioso
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/andrea.glorioso[facebook.com]
LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=1749288&trk=tab_pro[linkedin.com]