[At-Large] ICANN's response to IANA Transition negative propaganda

Carlton Samuels carlton.samuels at gmail.com
Sun Sep 11 00:23:22 UTC 2016

Brotherman, I could agree that its far better if the IANA 101 comes from
the stakeholders and others you mention.  Maybe the credibility rating
might rise a smidgen. But that is only to the extent that present kaskas
rests on lack of knowledge.  It is NOT.

I say again. That demographic of the American polity Ted Cruz and his ilk
are gunning for is highly unlikely to yield to fact. The DNS and IANA
Transition are not anywhere in Cruz's objective for this pissing contest.
He's not a stupid man. He knows nothing much has changed; American
institutions are in charge, BEFORE and AFTER. The demographic he's after
for riling up does not and is unlikely to give a damn.


*Carlton A Samuels*

*Mobile: 876-818-1799Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment &

On Sat, Sep 10, 2016 at 2:39 PM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com>

> Hello,
> 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/
> congress-blog/technology/295021-inaccurate-rhetoric-
> must-not-short-circuit-internet-transition
> Regards
> 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
>>> delayed.
>>> 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             |
>>> http://www.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
>>> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
>>> 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
>> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
>> At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
> _______________________________________________
> At-Large mailing list
> At-Large at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
> At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/at-large/attachments/20160910/41593c52/attachment.html>

More information about the At-Large mailing list