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

[Sivasubramanian M]

Replying to part of Andrew's comments in this message, inline:

On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 3:18 AM, Dr Eberhard W Lisse <el at lisse.na> wrote:

> 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.
>
​
If "NTIA's approval function does not actually do anything", neither
directs nor stymies any of the existing technical operations of Names,
Numbers and Protocols,  then it follows that the removal of this oversight
is more symbolic than functional. So, what is wrong with the idea of a
'ceremonious' transition of this 'titular' oversight before rushing into
the creation of new entities, into empowering a Community that is
unbalanced, empowering it over the ICANN Board in a manner that the
existing interests could find a way to limit the Board and Executive?   ​



> >
> >> 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.
>

​I said there could be several alternatives, I said my example was
off-the-cuff example to show that several alternatives could exist. Why are
you characterizing it as the only "hand-wavy" alternative that is placed?
And even then, why is it "ridiculous" to consider a ceremonial transition
to replace the titular oversight "that does no work" anyway and at the same
time set in motion the actual transition that would ensure a balance in
governance and a good accountability framework ?

(Also, in your first "ccs trimmed" reply, not only the cc addresses were
trimmed but also my original message and reply, the parts that you have
quoted does not present a clear picture of what I was talking about, so I
hope whoever was on your ccs trimmed list received a complete picture,
rather than only those parts that you chose to object)



> >
> > A
> >
> > --
> > Andrew Sullivan
> > ajs at anvilwalrusden.com
>
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>



-- 
Sivasubramanian M <https://www.facebook.com/sivasubramanian.muthusamy>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20160526/7b1642af/attachment-0001.html>