[At-Large] ICANN's response to IANA Transition negative propaganda
isolatedn at gmail.com
Sat Sep 10 19:46:13 UTC 2016
Doesn't matter where the 101 comes from, and it never too late for a 101.
What is important is that the 101 is easy as 101.
On Sun, Sep 11, 2016 at 1:09 AM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com>
> Actually I have a feeling that however ICANN says this may not be as
> important as how the various stakeholders who have been participating in
> this process over the last 2 years says it.
> I think we passed the stage where ICANN needs to write a 101 of the
> stewardship transition when NTIA okayed the respective proposals.
> It seem to me that more of the 101 explanations now needs to come from
> stakeholders who are closer to the US govt, it needs to come from members
> of GAC for instance who represents countries that participated in the
> development of the various proposals, it needs to come from technical
> communities who do the actual work of keeping the Internet engine running,
> it needs to come from civil societies and academia who understand that the
> completion of this transition would only serve as a check mark on one of
> the laid down plan of the US govt for DNS(the unique identifies) since of
> inception of ICANN.
> ISOC for instance has done her part: http://thehill.com/blogs/
> Sent from my LG G4
> Kindly excuse brevity and typos
> On 10 Sep 2016 20:14, "Sivasubramanian M" <isolatedn at gmail.com> wrote:
>> 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.
>> Sivasubramanian M
>> 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>
>> 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