[CWG-Stewardship] A liaison from the Board to CWG

[John Poole]

Greg:

I agree with Milton Mueller --"In reality there is no such thing as a
turn-key IANA transition proposal. Major pieces of any solution are going
to have to be described in the final proposal and implemented over a period
of months."

Greg, you are the only person I have heard use the term "turn-key" or like
words. Nowhere has Larry Strickling said or indicated the proposal when
submitted must be "turn-key"--if so, the CWG needs to tell Larry Strickling
to send his US government lawyers here now because we are going to draft
ALL the documents now and we need the US government's input now for
"approved FINAL Drafts" before even ICG has had a chance to do its initial
review!

If that is really what you and Jonathan and Lise think is needed or
required after re-reading Milton Mueller's apt comments below, but are
hesitant about contacting Larry Strickling and requesting the necessary
participation by US government lawyers in order to have "approved FINAL
drafts," I will be glad to do that for you and the CWG. However, I am also
confident that Mr. Strickling's response will be that it is not necessary
that the proposal be "turn-key" and that someone must have misunderstood
what he was saying.

CWG is already very late in submitting its proposal to the ICG--the CWG
proposal needs no more detail than the other proposals that have already
been submitted, see the comment by Seun Ojedeji
<http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/2015-February/001903.html>
on point. In fact, you will note that at our last meeting that it was
discussed how the voluminous detail in the draft proposal completed for
earlier phases of the CWG work will now have to be reduced and summarized
to be similar in scope to what was submitted by Protocols and Numbers.

Best regards,
John Poole

from Milton Mueller:
>
> For those of you not familiar with the idiom, turn-key means a solution
> that is 100% ready to operate upon arrival, like turning a key in the
> ignition of a new car and driving away in it.
>
> I would caution you against accepting this dictum, Greg. This ?turn-key?
> fantasy is really just one of the subtle ways of stacking the deck against
> proposals that aren?t what they had in mind. It is also a product of a kind
> of unjustified panic that the 2016 Presidential elections in the US might
> abort the transition. In reality there is no such thing as a turn-key IANA
> transition proposal. Major pieces of any solution are going to have to be
> described in the final proposal and implemented over a period of months.
> And a transition that is already underway in 2015 will not be aborted if it
> has widespread public support.
>
> As for the NTIA, they are going into public hearings in a few days and
> they are in no position to suddenly invent or impose arbitrary limitations
> or restrictions on what is an acceptable proposal. They have set forth
> their criteria publicly and that is what the community at large and the ICG
> will use as the basis for evaluation. Let us have no more talk, based on
> hallway whispers, about new demands or conditions regarding what the NTIA
> wants. If it is not in the publicly available criteria, it isn?t a factor.
>
> Milton L. Mueller
> Laura J. and L. Douglas Meredith Professor
> Syracuse University School of Information Studies
> http://faculty.ischool.syr.edu/mueller/mueller/Home.html
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20150223/aac03257/attachment.html>