At 12:13 AM 4/27/2015, Milton L Mueller wrote:
>You’re forgetting about the periodic review 
>process. If ICANN’s “misbehavior” is such 
>that it is trying to make sure that PTI is the 
>IANA functions operator when the community 
>doesn’t want it to be, the review function can 
>require the board to change IANA.
>
>If, on the other hand, ICANN misbehaves by 
>trying to use its (very indirect) control of 
>IANA to implement root zone changes that are not 
>actually properly authorized as policies, then 
>the existence of an independent PTI with its own 
>staff and board makes that a bit more difficult, 
>and much more transparent. I think there is also an appeals process.
>

But is it really "independent"? I grant you that 
it's "distinct" (i.e. as a separate legal 
entity), but as a wholly-owned subsidiary of 
ICANN with a Board that is answerable to, and 
possibly selected by, the ICANN Board, I don't 
think it can be considered "independent" of ICANN.

So if ICANN "misbehaves by trying to use its 
(very indirect) control of IANA to implement root 
zone changes that are not actually properly 
authorized as policies" what can the PTI Board 
realistically do?  Claim that its parent company 
is in breach of the PTI-ICANN contract?  How 
likely is it that the PTI Board would do that, 
given that ICANN is in a controlling position with respect to the PTI Board?

David









*******************************
David G Post - Senior Fellow, Open Technology Institute/New America Foundation
blog (Volokh Conspiracy) http://www.washingtonpost.com/people/david-post
book (Jefferson's Moose)  http://tinyurl.com/c327w2n
music 
http://tinyurl.com/davidpostmusic  publications 
etc.  http://www.davidpost.com
*******************************