[CWG-Stewardship] update on DT X Separation Process

[Milton L Mueller]

OK. I think the difference here is that I don't see a change of IANA functions providers as "nuclear," and while I don't think it is "ordinary" the word "extraordinary" also seems overstated to me. I see it as an organization replacing a bad service provider with a good one. No more - or no less - significant than changing an ISP. 

To get good accountability in this case you need quick and decisive action to replace an incompetent or rogue operator. 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-
> bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
> Sent: Friday, May 15, 2015 5:42 AM
> To: cwg-stewardship at icann.org
> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] update on DT X Separation Process
> 
> 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
> 
> _______________________________________________
> CWG-Stewardship mailing list
> CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship