[CCWG-ACCT] [ianatransition] U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation Full Hearing on 24 May 2016
isolatedn at gmail.com
Wed May 25 06:26:16 UTC 2016
On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 5:28 AM, Andrew Sullivan <ajs at anvilwalrusden.com>
> On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 01:37:20AM +0530, Sivasubramanian M wrote:
> > In many ways, a soft interim role for the US Government, or a short delay
> > would actually ensure that the transition details are gracefully accepted
> > by the whole world.
> As some of us who testified before the Committee today pointed out,
> there is no evidence for the above claim; and it might cause people to
> give up on IANA and go do something else.
What if the Transition goes through but causes the world to give up on
> Moreover, such an approach
> wouldn't actually prove anything. As Steve DelBianco pointed out
> repeatedly, for instance, either the tests will reveal nothing new
> (because the processes are already running), or else the test is very
> unlikely to happen (because the new powers are for extreme conditions
> that we all hope will not happen).
> Just for example, if you actually wanted to test whether the EC's
> ability to overturn the budget had the effects desired, we'd have to
> invent a crisis that nobody wants in order to see whether the crisis
> conditions are handled correctly. It is very hard for me to see how
> that would be a responsible "test" period. Either we're delaying
> something to perform a "test" that actually tests nothing at all, or
> else we have to introduce a needless crisis in order to see whether
> the mechanism works the way we'd like.
I have nowhere talked about tests, nor about lengthening the transition
phase by a phase for testing, but about moving towards such an elevated
Accountability framework where even tests would be unnecessary.
> Worse, we have a consensus, and it's being implemented. If the USG
> now says to the IANA operational communities that their consensus
> doesn't count, there is no reason to suppose those communities are
> going to wait around for the next promise to be broken, and there's no
> reason to believe that the Internet community generally will continue
> to find IANA valuable and useful. Both of those outcomes are bad news
> for the stability of the Internet identifier systems we have; and in
> my opinion they offer much greater risk than the putative benefit of a
> "soft" transition.
The promise is now in full view of the whole world, and the transition
process is underway, so, why do we talk in terms of the promise being
broken? And, are you saying that the Internet Community will NOT find IANA
valuable and useful?! Ever? Just because ICANN is to be asked to have a few
more hours of conversation (so to speak) on its Accountability framework??
There could be several possible forms of a 'soft' alternative to a quick
and unconditional approval of the transition proposal. It does not have to
call for a 'test' phase, it does not have to be a complete 'No' to
transition, it could indeed be transition on the promised date, but a
symbolic transition - to the existing ICANN, as it is, not to a
haphazardously reinvented ICANN. Such a symbolic or ceremonial transition
could be followed by a 'transition phase' where in NTIA would have make
'soft' interventions. Such a soft alternative path would in no way imply
that the existing stability of the Internet identifier system is in anyway
This, again is not the only soft solution, but an off-the-cuff example of
several possible soft alternatives to an unconditional approval of the
transition proposal, which, on a different note, has arisen out of immense
and impressive Community effort that truly demonstrates the
mutlistakeholder commitment to ICANN.
> Best regards,
> Andrew Sullivan
> ajs at anvilwalrusden.com
> ianatransition mailing list
> ianatransition at icann.org
Sivasubramanian M <https://www.facebook.com/sivasubramanian.muthusamy>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community