Are you speculating about the US trying to reclaim or reassert its current role after the transition occurs? It is very unlikely. The current arrangement is contractural, meaning ICANN would have to willingly enter into a new contract, which I do not see as likely considering the resistance that such a move would elicit from the community and the GAC.







> On Jun 24, 2015, at 12:02 PM, Dorothy K. Gordon <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>

> There are no guarantees about the future.  The question is what would be legal. Right now the process has me totally befuddled.  So if anyone sees clear tell me.

>

> best

>

> Dorothy K. Gordon

> Director-General

> Ghana-India Kofi Annan Centre of Excellence in ICT

> Mobile: 233 265005712

> Direct Line: 233 302 683579

> Website: www.aiti-kace.com.gh

> Encrypt Everything - https://gpgtools.org https://silentcircle.com

>

>



Brett Schaefer

Jay Kingham Senior Research Fellow in International Regulatory Affairs

Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom

Davis Institute for National Security and Foreign Policy

The Heritage Foundation

214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE

Washington, DC 20002

202-608-6097

heritage.org



----- Original Message -----

> From: "Carlos Afonso" <[log in to unmask]>

> To: [log in to unmask]

> Sent: Wednesday, 24 June, 2015 1:32:01 PM GMT +00:00 Casablanca / Monrovia

> Subject: transition IANA II

>

> ... and since I am at it, did anyone consider the guarantees to be set

> in place so that the USA government does not decide to reverse the

> process at a certain point in time, after the conclusion of the

> transition, and take it over again?

>

> This could happen if the post-transition dynamics leads to new

> arrangements which the US government does not like, or if a change in

> the US government might lead to a full review of the process.

>

> How secure this will be after its conclusion?

>

> fraternal regards

>

> --c.a.