[DT-F] URGENT: Several questions for DT-F

[Milton L Mueller]

> -----Original Message-----
> An argument for "minimal change" is not an argument for "no change." (I'm
> as aware as anyone that keeping the current system "the same" isn't
> possible.)

Then what change are you proposing? It seems to me that you not are proposing any.

> One possible way to characterize the difference is that I'm advocating we
> start with what we have and change as little as possible, consistent with a
> goal of not weakening the post-NTIA system from what we have now (i.e.
> meeting the same requirements the system meets today). If I understand
> correctly, you're advocating that we add a new requirement for the post-
> NTIA system (a real two-party rule). 

That's not quite how I would characterize it. The presence of the NTIA (not Verisign) did in fact amount to version of a 2-party rule. ICANN proposed changes and NTIA authorized them before allowing Verisign to publish. To eliminate the authorization without instituting some kind of compensatory measure seems to be the greater deviation from what we have now.

> has not been a requirement before and isn't a characteristic of the system now. 

"Requirements" is an engineering concept. The USG-ICANN-Verisign relationship was not a product of engineering design requirements, it was an historical artifact and a product of path dependency. See below

> doesn't mean it's a bad idea, or even that I oppose it. It does mean it's a new
> attribute we'd be trying to add to the post-NTIA system.

There is no way to avoid "new attributes" as far as I can tell 

> I can understand an argument that "As long as we're changing things, this is
> a good thing to change."

I think that's the key difference between us. I sense from the technical community a conservatism that is not fully cognizant of the issues and constraints associated with complex institutional changes involving dozens of stakeholder groups. To simplify, let me just point out that systemic institutional changes of this sort are characterized by punctuated equilibria rather than incremental change. The opportunities to change the system are rare, and once changes are made the inertia that sets in is enormous. If we can change something for the better now, we should do it now. We are very unlikely to have another chance, at least not for a long while and not until some disequilibrating factor equal in force to the Snowden revelations comes along. This is why we have the current arrangements, by the way, and why they are so odd. They just fell into place at a certain point and no one had the energy or political capital to change them for 17 years. It seems to be that the simple principle David, Jordan and others are proposing is not a very big change, not at all a risky one, and something that is quite appropriate to do at this time. You, on the other hand, are kind of assuming that we can just take this up later whenever we feel like it. I am very, very confident that that is a false assumption. 

--MM

> 
> I've perhaps misunderstood how you want to position this particular goal-- I
> think my main reservation is about making it a requirement of the
> transition.
> 
> > We are talking about a new arrangement. Further, as David points out,
> > the current system doesn't really have 2-party authorization and even
> > now can actually result in arbitrary changes to the RZ, and without
> > the CA, that seems more serious to me that now, when Verisign is under
> > CA
> >
> > So I think we _should_ recommend some kind of a two-party arrangement.
> In response to this concern:
> >
> >> I don't like to constrain future decisions unnecessarily
> >
> > I think we can make that recommendation at the principle level in a way
> that is not so constraining.
> 
> I suspect this is true. I'm more concerned about being able to run the
> analysis and come up with new process that we're sure of, all as part of the
> transition.
> 
> As I said, however, I'm not willing to stand against consensus on this. I'd be
> particularly happy to hear from some of the directly affected parties on it
> during the comment period.
> 
> 
> best,
> Suzanne
>