[CCWG-ACCT] [ianatransition] U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation Full Hearing on 24 May 2016

[Dr Eberhard W Lisse]

And you are not done.

It does no work if it suits ICANN and if it suits ICANN it does, as in making it up as they go along.

Of course the same set of people will answer the same question the same way, without even reading the proposal.

el
-- 
Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini 4

> On 25 May 2016, at 22:30, Andrew Sullivan <ajs at anvilwalrusden.com> wrote:
> 
> Off list, because I think I'm done with this topic.
> 
> On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 09:54:51PM +0100, Dr Eberhard W Lisse wrote:
>>> On 25 May 2016, at 21:29, Andrew Sullivan <ajs at anvilwalrusden.com> wrote:
>> [...]
>>>> The transition proposal is simply a proposal to eliminate a function that is unneeded and does no work.  
>> [...]
>> 
>> Nothing in this is simple, and whether it is unneeded is open for debate. 
>> 
>> However when it suits ICANN it alleges that the function does work.
> 
> I didn't say it does not work.  I said it does _no_ work, in that
> NTIA's approval function does not actually do anything that the
> existing technical checks do not already do.
> 
>> The amount of work can not be used as rationale.
> 
> It can't be used as a rationale as to why the proposal ought to be
> implemented, but it can certainly be used as part of an argument about
> why a hand-wavy alternative seems ridiculous.  If you take the same
> facts to the same set of people and ask them the same question, there
> is no reason to suppose they'll come up with a different answer.
> 
> A
> 
> -- 
> Andrew Sullivan
> ajs at anvilwalrusden.com