[CCWG-ACCT] [ianatransition] U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation Full Hearing on 24 May 2016

Wed May 25 18:03:01 UTC 2016

Dear Andrew Sullivan,

On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 6:38 PM, Andrew Sullivan <ajs at anvilwalrusden.com>
wrote:

> Note: ccs trimmed.
>
> On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 11:56:16AM +0530, Sivasubramanian M wrote:
> >
> > What if the Transition goes through but causes the world to give up on
> > ICANN ?
>
> Do you have some reason to suppose that will happen?  But anyway, that
> is _always_ a possibility.  That's what a network of networks is like.
>

I did not want to elaborate, and did not want to outline a scenario which
would have the unintended consequences of being emulated. But you yourself
have acknowledged such a possibility, I could only add that it is not
something that you could be dismissive about.

>
> > 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.
>
> So, you wish now to inject a completely different option even than
> that which Heritage has suggested?
>

I have neither studied nor followed any rationale that the Heritage
Foundation might have outlined to reach their conclusion about the timing
of the transition.  I have borrowed one word, "soft" from the Spoken
testimony of Brett Schaefer whom I do NOT know, and extracted the relevant
passage from his written testimony to quote in my original message on this
thread.  My rationale is my own, it is a different option. The answer to
your question is Yes.

>
> > 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?
>
> I am talking about the alternative future in which the USG decides not
> to permit the transition, in the teeth of the consensus for making it
> happen.
>

I was concerned about it on a different plane. The Transition proposal,
viewed as a proposal from the ICANN Community to the US Government, might
look satisfactory to the US Government in most respects. But viewed from a
global perspective, Transition could also be seen as becoming an exercise
whereby the US Government conveys to the whole world that ICANN Governance
is now global. In this sense, once adopted by the US Government, the
transition proposal is no longer a proposal from the ICANN Community to the
US Government, but notionally becomes a blueprint document from the US
Government to the whole world on the transition of oversight of Critical
Internet Resources, to convey to the world, "We created ICANN, We continue
to host the geographical space for ICANN, we placed it under California
jurisdiction based on a certain rationale, but with the deeper intentions
of ensuring that the coordination of Internet Names and Numbers is
happening in global public interest with the participation of the global
multistakeholder community. Post Transition, your trust in the management
of DNS would increase, without concerns arising out of the perception that
we are controlling the resources"  Some aspects of the transition proposal
falls short of being a clear message to the Global stakeholders. I felt
that the US Government ought to see the Transition proposal as its own
document addressed to the World and pay attention from this perspective.

>
> > 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??
>
> I think that the continued use of IANA is done on a cost-benefit
> basis, and the longer this goes on the higher the cost gets.  There
> will be a point at which people will say that this is all stupid and
> find another way to solve their problems.  I think we are perilously
> close to that point.
>

The cost is a few more million dollars, but the benefits (stakes) are
trillions of dollars, if money is the only the concern, and it is not.

>
> > haphazardously reinvented ICANN. Such a symbolic or ceremonial transition
>
> The point of this transition is not ceremony.  It's to get a wheel
> that does no useful work out of our operations.  Period.
>
> I don't even know what a ceremonial transition would be, never mind
> why I'd want one.
>

That would demonstrate and reaffirm the commitment to Transition, set in
motion the Transition, while allowing room to get the finer details right.

>
> > This, again is not the only soft solution, but an off-the-cuff example of
>
> I suggest that, instead of pursuing distracting (and frankly more than
> a little insulting) off-the-cuff proposals that wave away the hard
> work of the various operational communities and that solve no actual
> problem anyone has identified, we spend our cycles working to
> implement the consensus proposal.
>

I used the phrase "off-the-cuff" to imply that it would take expert
deliberations to generate soft options, and tried to illustrate the
existence of such a soft option. And "off the cuff" implied that the
example was prone to be flawed, and not one that was to taken literally. I
am posting my views as an individual in this list with participants who are
open and receptive.  It is allowed, I think.

Why is it seen as "a little insulting"? If there is anything insulting on
this page, it is your remark that this is "distracting". Even if my
comments are unexpected and not (momentarily) in tune with that of the
Community I belong to, I mean well.

Thank you.
Sivasubramanian M

>
> Best regards,
>
> A
>
> --
> Andrew Sullivan
> ajs at anvilwalrusden.com
>

-- 
Sivasubramanian M <https://www.facebook.com/sivasubramanian.muthusamy>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20160525/f30c3484/attachment-0001.html>