[CWG-Stewardship] update on DT X Separation Process

[Avri Doria]

hi,

I have responded. Several times I thought.  Maybe you just did not like
my epxlanation.

1. i do not believe that the same group that recommends a so-called
nuclear process is the one to execute that process.  It is a checks and
balances sort of thing.  You do not give yourself a task of this magnitude.

2. I see taking a further step in the separation process as needing the
same sort of full community review and support that transition
requires.  This is being defined as an extraordinary event , not a
regualr event in the current formulaton.

3. I believe that those who review and accept this transition proposal
should be able to have the assurance that the ground is not going to
easily slip under them.  If we make it too easy to go to RFP or spin out
of the PTI, they could be forgiven for insecurity about our proposal

That is why I beleive it is not

Over-bureaucratization of this process

but rather giving a serious issue the proper full community  due
consideration.

avri


On 15-May-15 11:26, Milton L Mueller wrote:
> 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.
>
>


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
http://www.avast.com