[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[icann-eu] A *larger* role for U.S. DoC?
- To: icann-europe@fitug.de
- Subject: [icann-eu] A *larger* role for U.S. DoC?
- From: Alexander Svensson <svensson@icannchannel.de>
- Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 12:40:11 +0100
- Comment: This message comes from the icann-europe mailing list.
- Sender: owner-icann-europe@fitug.de
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