[CWG-Stewardship] [DTA - SLE] SLE Document with clarifying background info.

[Bill Woodcock]

> On May 9, 2015, at 7:39 PM, Andrew Sullivan <ajs at anvilwalrusden.com> wrote:
> 
> This is basically an argument that we have to do everything at the time of transition because after that it'll be impossible to get changes.  If that's true, then the accountability changes will have been inadequate. If that's what we think will happen, we should resist the transition _at all_.

The argument that’s been presented to me is that once _Congress_ has allowed the transition to go forward, _Congress_ will lose any opportunity to tinker under ICANN’s hood, so _Congress_ wants to do any tinkering now, before allowing the transition to go forward.

I’m not saying that I find that compelling, just relating it as it was related to me, since it seemed internally consistent.

Obviously, from the Numbers community’s point of view (and presumably the Protocols community’s as well), tweaking exactly one variable at a time, and not having to deal with other changes at the same time as the oversight change, would make much more sense.  But that’s not an argument that carries any particular weight with Congress, presumably.

                                -Bill




-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 801 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20150509/2a035b56/signature.asc>