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

[Andrew Sullivan]

On Sun, May 10, 2015 at 12:28:51PM +0000, Milton L Mueller 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_.
> 
> Non sequitur. The transition creates the opportunity for improvements. But as soon as it's over the willingness of all parties to change recedes. 
>

My point is that, as part of the transition, the accountability
mechanisms at ICANN are supposed to be improved enough that we ought
to be able to assume that ongoing improvements will be possible.  If
that it _not_ what we're going to get from the transition, then I am
saying that the multi-stakeholder names community (as organized in
ICANN) does not actually have the control and oversight that it needs,
and therefore it's not the time to undertake the transition.  I don't
happen to think that's true, but if people really believe that we're
not going to get the sort of control we ought to out of the
transition, it is not prudent to proceed with the change.  On the
contrary, it would be reckless.  You seem to be claiming that we won't
get such mechanisms, and if that's true then I'm claiming we shouldn't
have a transition.

> transition - and this tendency is greatly worsened by people who
> tell us that separability is a bad thing or a risky thing and that
> an external contracting authority is not necessary because we
> can....rely on ICANN's accountability reforms. So if you are one of
> those people, (and sometimes you sound like one)

I don't think that the ability to terminate the agreement and change
to someone else is a bad or risky thing.  On the contrary, I think it
is simply a normal commercial arrangement -- what else can you do in a
contractual situation in the case of failure of one of the parties to
hold up the bargain?  What I have been focussed on is doing the
minimum necessary to effect the changes we want.  Several of the
proposals I've seen floating around seem to create additional
committees, bodies, and so on with the inevitable desire for big
boards, many subcommittees, and the like.  Those proposals are, in my
opinion, a good way to create more expensive bureaucracy but a poor
way to achieve the thing we want to achieve.  That is what I've been
objecting to, and I regret that it apparently wasn't plain.

Best regards,

A
-- 
Andrew Sullivan
ajs at anvilwalrusden.com