All,
Here is my brief comment from the Cross-Community Working Group on
Accountability, where Bruce Tonkin posted the text from:
https://www.icann.org/iana-stewardship-questions
<https://www.icann.org/iana-stewardship-questions>
Bruce, This is the formal evidence and logic based ICANN contribution to
clarity here. That helps but the risk is that the IANA Transition will
become a political football in the final days of the U.S. election. At
that point evidence and logic will hold little sway against media "sound
bites" that may well be completely false. The hope is that the parties
to the election have bigger issues to deal with. If this becomes an
issue there will be nothing ICANN can do in the immediate time frame,
but there would be important lessons for ICANN to learn with regard to
an ongoing strategy of global internet governance education.
Actually, going forward ICANN, working with its stakeholders, should
address this challenge even if the issue does not become media sound
bites in the next couple of weeks. Accountability, like open data,
should include knowledge translation to inform and educate all. [/Sorry,
as an academic I succumbed to a Saturday lecture here, but I do know
what it means to talk over people's heads, we (and ICANN) do it all the
time, with poor results /// ]
Sam L.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 9/10/2016 5:14 AM, Michael Oghia wrote:
> Good point Wolfgang, plus it is more succinct.
>
> -Michael
>
> On Sat, Sep 10, 2016 at 11:06 AM, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang"
> <[log in to unmask]
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
>
> I prefer the official ICANN language "IANA Stewardship
> Transition": https://www.icann.org/iana-stewardship-questions
> <https://www.icann.org/iana-stewardship-questions>
>
> Wolfgang
>
|