Hi,
I think this misses part of the point of this process.
The main goal is the Transition away from the US government oversight.
Something that for many in the world is an important end in itself.
This was linked to improvements in ICANN accountability. We fought for
that and got it. Upfront we agreed to this process be divided into two
parts.
1st phase - those things that needed to be done before we could allow
the transition, so that there would be a fair degree of certainty that
the second set of issues, the longer term harder to solve issues could
be done.
2nd phase- those second phase items that are harder and will take more
time for the community to reach consensus on.
I, and believe others, hold that that first phase is now done, we have a
sufficiently (or at least a level that we can be satisficed with)
empowered community to start working on the longer term phase 2 reform
issues. To use the fact that the 2nd phase is not yet done as an excuse
to not go forward is to miss the essential bargain that allowed us to
link accountability with the transition in the first place. We have the
tools we need, we just have to finish up so we can start to use these tools.
I gather that you believe we have not sufficiently empowered the
community. Or perhaps that we might have, but can't we know for sure.
In terms of that, we have far more control over the Board's cooperation
than we have had before before. Now we not only pick them, but we ask
them to sign pre-service letters on taking office acknowledging the
communitys right to remove them (7.2.f) for a reason yet to be
determined. And that is just the big stick we are getting. We are
getting lots of other stuff (smaller sticks) as well. The Board has
also shown a good degree of cooperation and good will in this process,
especially lately.
At this point in time we can move forward with the consensus we have
reached and start working on the hard stuff. Or we can put this all
back in the box and wait for the next opportunity with an NTIA and
administration that will champion this process.
And while I am sure I will still fight with the board over this and
that, the playing field is being leveled quite a bit. Reconsideration
has been recast to include consideration of the Articles, Bylaw, and
policies (instead of just policies) and the work to open up the appeals
mechanisms of the IRP is not only agreed to in the bylaws, the
modalities for that opening up are being worked on now and largely will
be in place by the time of the transition.
I think that not going forward would be injurious to our own goals. If
we walk away from this now, or delay it which for me is effectively the
same, we will be taking actions against our own self interest.
avri
On 26-May-16 11:28, David Post wrote:
> In response to the questions about the political costs of delay
> (below), I think that nobody on this list (or anywhere else) has the
> faintest idea what US government policy (Pres + House + Senate)
> towards the transition (or anything else) might look like a year or
> two from now. I certainly agree that delay would be a big mistake, if
> the goal is to achieve the transition at all costs.
>
> But that's not the goal, in my eyes. The goal is to create an
> institution that can manage these resources in a reasonable way, for
> the next [many] years. The CCWG reached a consensus on the structure
> of an institution that it believes will do that - although to be fair,
> it's actually just a sketch of that institution, with critical pieces
> yet to be fleshed out and added into the mix.
>
> I don't pretend to understand anything about politics, but I do know
> that this is not only a "political" problem, it's also an
> "engineering" problem - corporate engineering. The CCWG has designed
> a machine that it believes will be able to check its own excesses, and
> that will operate transparently, taking the views of all interested
> communities into account in making its decisions. It's astonishingly
> complicated, and it has never been tried before. IT MIGHT WORK VERY
> WELL - I'm not disputing that, perhaps requiring only tweaking here
> and there, as Avri suggested.
>
> But it might not. Astonishingly complicated machines have an annoying
> habit of not functioning as advertised - at least, not at first,
> before they have been put through their paces. It seems to me that it
> is ordinary prudence, to demand proof that the whole new
> infrastructure works before signing off on it. The consequences if
> this machine fails could be very severe.
>
> All I'm suggesting is that it would hardly seem unreasonable, to me,
> if the USG took the position that while it is signing off on the
> transition, it is doing so subject to a kind of probationary period
> that will enable us all to understand better whether and how it
> actually works. Perhaps other countries will view that as a terribly
> untrustworthy move, perhaps they won't - I do think it helps that it
> is, fundamentally, quite a reasonable position to take.
>
> David
>
>
> Mueller, Milton L wrote:
>> MM Do we know who the next NTIA and Congress will work, in practice,
>> on the ground? The question answers itself. To push this off to the
>> next administration is to introduce a completely new and unknown set
>> of factors into the situation – without in any way improving the
>> reforms. [SNIP] And US Commerce Dept approval? How revocable is that
>> once we lose this opportunity to get rid of it? Have you given that
>> any thought?
>
> William Drake wrote:
>> WD: Respect your views on the outstanding issues, but am still
>> concerned about the larger political consequences. So I have a
>> couple simple questions, if the transition is delayed as you suggest:
>> 1. If Hillary somehow manages to get elected, when do you expect the
>> further process you want would be completed and the political ducks
>> would be lined up in DC for the US to finally relinquish its role?
>> 2. If Hillary somehow manages to lose to Il Donald, in what decade
>> do you expect the US would relinquish its role?
>> 3. What do you think the “rest of the world” governments that
>> have been screaming about the imperative to end the US role being the
>> number one Internet issue on the global agenda will be doing in the
>> meanwhile as we go through the many cycles of community tweaking and
>> US politics involved?
>
> Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote:
>> May I add two questions:
>>
>> 1. If the IANA Transition is delayed what do you expect from
>> governments in the UNCSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation which
>> will start in September 2016 and will deliver a report to the UN
>> General Assembly (via CSTD and ECOSOC) in fall 2017?
>>
>> 2. If the IANA Transition is delayed what do you expect from the next
>> ITU Plenipot scheduled for fall 2018 in Dubai?
>
>
> *******************************
> David G. Post
> Volokh Conspiracy Blog http://www.washingtonpost.com/people/david-post
> <http://www.washingtonpost.com/people/david-post>
> Book (ISO Jefferson's Moose) http://tinyurl.com/c327w2n
> <http://tinyurl.com/c327w2n%A0%A0%A0>
> Music https://soundcloud.com/davidpost-1/sets
> <https://soundcloud.com/davidpost-1/sets>Publications & Misc.
> http://www.ssrn.com/author=537 <http://www.ssrn.com/author=537%A0>
> http://www.davidpost.com <http://www.davidpost.com/>
> *******************************
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
|
