At 11:20 AM 5/25/2016, Niels ten Oever wrote:
>I think this is a very weird use of the IETF slogan. The code (IANA
>functions) is running, and was running, and will be running. That is
>why the CSG proposal was easier than the CCWG proposal.
I should have been clearer about what I meant. I wasn't referring to
the "code" running the IANA Functions, but the "code" to be
incorporated in the new ICANN bylaws. The purpose of the IETF mantra
was to ensure that nothing would be deployed Internet-wide as an
Internet standard unless it could be demonstrated that (a) there was
a consensus among the community that it was a desirable change, AND
(b) that it "worked" - not just in theory, on paper, or in the minds
of its designers, but in fact, as demonstrated by an actual working
deployment - that it did what it was designed to do and did not have
any fatal conflicts with other elements of the system.
My point was that a delay, along the lines of what Brett is
suggesting, would give us a great deal of information that we need
about whether the governance scheme actually does what it has been
designed to do. The CCWG Proposal designs an ICANN that, in its
governance structure, is unlike any other institution that has ever
existed. That may turn out to have been a very good decision. But I
don't see how anyone, given its astonishing complexity and the sheer
number of its moving parts, can be so sure that it will do what it
was designed to do, and I see Brett's suggestion as a perfectly
reasonable way to achieve at least a degree of certainty about how it
will actually operate, in practice.
David
>On 05/25/2016 04:40 PM, David Post wrote:
> > But the other hals of the old IETF equation is critical, too: "Running
> > Code." Having arrived at consensus is no guarantee that the system will
> > actually work as planned. Nobody knows if this code will run smoothly
> > or not, and it seems perfectly sensible to say we should find that out
> > before we adopt it. Of course, delay has costs - but it has the very
> > significant advantage that it is not irrevocable.
>
>--
>Niels ten Oever
>Head of Digital
>
>Article 19
>www.article19.org
>
>PGP fingerprint 8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4
> 678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9
*******************************
David G. Post
Volokh Conspiracy Blog http://www.washingtonpost.com/people/david-post
Book (ISO Jefferson's Moose) http://tinyurl.com/c327w2n
Music https://soundcloud.com/davidpost-1/sets
Publications & Misc. http://www.ssrn.com/author=537 http://www.davidpost.com
*******************************
|
