[ianatransition] separation and accountability
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:
> 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,
> Andrew Sullivan
> ajs at anvilwalrusden.com
> ianatransition mailing list
> ianatransition at icann.org
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