[CWG-Stewardship] update on DT X Separation Process

[Milton L Mueller]

Avri:
I support your concepts of the possible outcomes but I don't understand why a "separation review" is conceived as a new and independent process from the IFR. I've said this before but there has been no answer. If an IFR indicates that the community is so dissatisfied that separation is a live possibility, it seems that action needs to be taken expeditiously instead of launching another review process. Isn't it possible that this should be more like a choice of a service vendor than something like the ICG/IANA stewardship transition? We are not changing stewardship or high-level institutions, we are changing a functions operator. Over-bureaucratization of this process actually works against accountability by making the costs of a switch so high as to be prohibitive.

May I please have a response to this?

--MM

> -----Original Message-----
> 
> To relate this to the SR, each would present a different set of opportunities
> for SR action, that is why the 5 possibilities in the SR text are really just
> examples, an incomplete set in the whole universe of examples, that the SR
> mechanism could recmmend.
> 
> As I mentioned in the call this is my personal reason for thinking that an SR
> event, needs to be quite similar to the current Transition event.
> It would be a big deal that the whole community would need to be involved
> in.