[At-Large] ICANN's response to IANA Transition negative propaganda
isolatedn at gmail.com
Sat Sep 10 19:14:02 UTC 2016
These are good answers to some of the questions by critics. However, I
agree that it sounds technical. I somehow believe that these write ups
(that eventually get reported elsewhere) could start by explaining in one
or two sentences what is ICANN, what is DNS, what is IANA, what is
transition, and what changes after transition. If this press release is
crucial, it might not have been wasteful to hire communications expertise
to write this with a copywriter's clarity.
On Sat, Sep 10, 2016 at 11:37 PM, <bzs at theworld.com> wrote:
> I think maybe you're being a little harsh Evan. It is what it is. It
> answers a bunch of questions from the POV of "ICANN" (more in a
> moment) and is well done.
> My criticism would be more that at a few points it tries to predict
> the future in ways no one can really predict like will ICANN relocate
> outside the US after the transition.
> Who knows?! "After the transition" covers the period from the
> transition until the sun goes supernova extinguishing all life on
> earth, and beyond!
> Which perhaps gets back to accountability.
> If, for example, points made in this document are blatantly violated
> and there was no real intent to adhere to these statements, then what
> happens? The day after the ink dries -- or put better fails to dry,
> contract expires -- on the transition ICANN announces they're moving
> the corp to Geneva. Then what?
> Ok, it's not a contract.
> It is a representation of sorts to the public from a particular set of
> people at a particular point in time.
> But it's not even clear whose document this is (this is the "more"
> from above) other than "ICANN's". Did the board approve this? The
> President and/or executive staff?
> And it does have a lot of wiggle room.
> For example one which struck me is "Will ICANN seek oversight by the
> U.N. to maintain its antitrust exemption after the transition?"
> It's a reasonable question but so is just the first phrase alone,
> "Will ICANN seek oversight by the U.N.?" <full stop>. That's actually
> what Cruz et al are asking.
> But it pins that question of oversight to antitrust exemption only.
> Most importantly is the question of what happens if the transition is
> The answer sounds like a big hand wave. It would introduce
> "uncertainty" etc.
> Makes one wonder if the actual answer is that other than the grave
> personal disappointment of many who worked long and hard on this
> transition there probably wouldn't be any significant consequences the
> target reader might notice.
> Life would go on, ICANN would take a public position that there were
> too many open issues, the schedule was too aggressive, Sen Cruz is the
> devil incarnate, and this would become the biennial sporting event as
> each contract nears expiration until the sun goes supernova.
> -Barry Shein
> Software Tool & Die | bzs at TheWorld.com |
> Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: +1 617-STD-WRLD | 800-THE-WRLD
> The World: Since 1989 | A Public Information Utility | *oo*
> At-Large mailing list
> At-Large at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
Sivasubramanian M <https://www.facebook.com/sivasubramanian.muthusamy>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the At-Large