[ianatransition] separation and accountability

Barry Shein bzs at world.std.com
Sat Aug 2 16:30:51 UTC 2014

This is why I was asking about remedies.

On August 1, 2014 at 21:28 ajs at anvilwalrusden.com (Andrew Sullivan) wrote:
 > Hi,
 > On Sat, Aug 02, 2014 at 01:31:56AM +0200, Avri Doria wrote:
 > > I don't know it sound like the only recourse the IETF has for problems
 > > is to wait until they get bad enough for the nuclear option.
 > With respect, that's a parody of the argument I've been making.
 > Surely the point of a situation where you have a "final out" like that
 > is that it ensures people will negotiate so that the worst doesn't
 > come to pass?
 > > Personally I think it is better to have intermediate solutions like
 > > independent appeals panles and independent audits.
 > Quite frankly, I look at the arrangement that the IETF has, which is
 > free of these independent panels (but not audits, note -- we actually
 > rely on those); and I look at the panel- and committee-heavy
 > arrangements that ICANN has.  I'm having a hard time seeing how the
 > latter has served the relevant community well.  (It is not alone in
 > this.  I can think of international agreements I've paid attention to
 > that have all these supposedly neutral dispute resolution panels.
 > They don't seem to be better than the arrangement in which parties to
 > the agreement argue directly with one another in the case of disputes.)
 > I think I've said this often enough, so this is the last time I'll
 > repeat it: I do not see what the benefit is supposed to be of these
 > external parties, which would have to be made up and constituted and
 > argued about.  I still don't think I've seen an argument where someone
 > says, "That's better than direct negotiation because ,Ab€&(B".  The argument
 > is, in every case I can so far recall (I'm happy to be corrected) one
 > of two types.  
 > The first is that these outside bodies are somehow more legitimate, or
 > that they're somehow more likely to work, but I can't for the life of
 > me figure out how except for in the case of ICANN-as-policy-body to
 > ICANN-as-IANA.  For that reason, I continue to claim that, while there
 > may indeed be a problem for names, there is not a problem in general;
 > and that therefore the names community has an internal problem that it
 > has to sort out.
 > The second is that negotiation between the directly-dealing parties
 > (IETF, RIRs, ICANN-as-policy) is insufficient, because there's no
 > representation of "everyone else".  This argument strikes me as having
 > seriously misplaced the burden of proof.  Each of those parties has an
 > open process -- one in which anyone interested can participate.
 > "Everyone else" could simply join in the policy debates in the
 > relevant community.  So this argument either reduces to, "I want
 > influence for those who don't care about any of this," or else, "I
 > don't like the way those procedures work, and rather than attempting
 > to make that argument I want to create a new body where I can argue
 > for a different procedure."  It seems to me that someone has
 > transparently argued for the first of these, though how the interests
 > of people who don't care about something (perhaps because they don't
 > know about it) are to be represented is mysterious to me.  As near as
 > I can tell, nobody has argued the second way, though I sometimes
 > wonder whether that might be the actual spring behind an argument.
 > Best regards,
 > A
 > -- 
 > Andrew Sullivan
 > ajs at anvilwalrusden.com
 > _______________________________________________
 > ianatransition mailing list
 > ianatransition at icann.org
 > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ianatransition

        -Barry Shein

The World              | bzs at TheWorld.com           | http://www.TheWorld.com
Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 800-THE-WRLD        | Dial-Up: US, PR, Canada
Software Tool & Die    | Public Access Internet     | SINCE 1989     *oo*

More information about the ianatransition mailing list