[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [icann-eu] A *larger* role for U.S. DoC?
- To: Alexander Svensson <svensson@icannchannel.de>
- Subject: Re: [icann-eu] A *larger* role for U.S. DoC?
- From: "Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" <froomkin@law.miami.edu>
- Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 08:16:36 -0500 (EST)
- Cc: icann-europe@fitug.de
- Comment: This message comes from the icann-europe mailing list.
- In-Reply-To: <E14JDRz-000553-00@mrvdom04.kundenserver.de>
- Sender: owner-icann-europe@fitug.de
A fair request.
My reasons for this view are set out in excruciating detail at:
http://personal.law.miami.edu/~froomkin/articles/icann.pdf
or, use the HTML version, at
http://personal.law.miami.edu/~froomkin/articles/icann-main.htm
[beware if you have a slow link - this is a *long* document]
On Thu, 18 Jan 2001, Alexander Svensson wrote:
>
> Dear all,
>
> I just saw the "Public Interest Groups' letter to Department
> of Commerce Regarding ICANN"
> http://www.icannwatch.org/archives/quick/979766847.shtml
>
> The signatories (members of ACLU, ACM, CPSR, EPIC, and Froomkin)
> request that the NTIA, the department within the U.S. Department
> of Commerce dealing with the Internet, holds "a public hearing
> before taking any further action on this matter".
>
> The legal argument rests on the U.S. Administrative Procedure Act
> (APA) and that "any attempt by the U.S. Government or its agents
> to decide such an important matter of public policy without
> adherence to principles of notice and public participation
> embodied in the APA would be wrong as a matter of principle, and
> indeed illegal not to mention potentially unconstitutional".
> That is, un-U.S.-constitutional.
>
> I was a bit taken aback by this letter. Not about the critique
> regarding ICANN's TLD decision, but about running to the U.S. DoC/NTIA
> for protection.
>
> If you read the comments about the planned hearing in the U.S. House
> Commerce Committee in Germany, you will see some annoyance that it
> looks once more as if ICANN is a Federal Agency of the USA.
> While I don't oppose *parliamentary* scrutiny of ICANN (every
> parliament is entitled to do it, not only the U.S.), I don't
> see why the DoC should be involved in this even more than it is now.
>
> Maybe some of the signatories want to explain why they think that
> this is a matter for the U.S. Administration?
>
> Best regards,
> /// Alexander
>
> _______________________________________________________
> ICANN Channel http://www.icannchannel.de
>
--
Please visit http://www.icannwatch.org
A. Michael Froomkin | Professor of Law | froomkin@law.tm
U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA
+1 (305) 284-4285 | +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax) | http://www.law.tm
-->It's cool here.<--