Sent from my LG G4
Kindly excuse brevity and typos
On 26 May 2016 00:05, "Sivasubramanian M" <isolatedn@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Replying to part of Andrew's comments in this message, inline:
>
> On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 3:18 AM, Dr Eberhard W Lisse <el@lisse.na> wrote:
>>
> ​
> If "NTIA's approval function does not actually do anything", neither directs nor stymies any of the existing technical operations of Names, Numbers and Protocols,  then it follows that the removal of this oversight is more symbolic than functional. So, what is wrong with the idea of a 'ceremonious' transition of this 'titular' oversight before rushing into the creation of new entities, into empowering a Community that is unbalanced, empowering it over the ICANN Board in a manner that the existing interests could find a way to limit the Board and Executive?   ​
>
>  
SO: FWIW this would have probably received my support as well. However, it will be a violation of NTIA's requirement who requested transfer/replacement of its stewardship role to/with the "Internet MS community". In essence the stewardship on IANA functions operation(and ICANN) is maintained just that it will now be by the MS community and no longer the NTIA.

Overall it is either we want to do this transition or maintain status-quo as there is no middle ground on that. I prefer the former cos the "later" would have significant foreseen implications.

Regards
>>
>> >
>> >> The amount of work can not be used as rationale.
>> >
>> > It can't be used as a rationale as to why the proposal ought to be
>> > implemented, but it can certainly be used as part of an argument about
>> > why a hand-wavy alternative seems ridiculous.  If you take the same
>> > facts to the same set of people and ask them the same question, there
>> > is no reason to suppose they'll come up with a different answer.
>
>
> ​I said there could be several alternatives, I said my example was off-the-cuff example to show that several alternatives could exist. Why are you characterizing it as the only "hand-wavy" alternative that is placed? And even then, why is it "ridiculous" to consider a ceremonial transition to replace the titular oversight "that does no work" anyway and at the same time set in motion the actual transition that would ensure a balance in governance and a good accountability framework ?
>
> (Also, in your first "ccs trimmed" reply, not only the cc addresses were trimmed but also my original message and reply, the parts that you have quoted does not present a clear picture of what I was talking about, so I hope whoever was on your ccs trimmed list received a complete picture, rather than only those parts that you chose to object)
>
>  
>>
>> >
>> > A
>> >
>> > --
>> > Andrew Sullivan
>> > ajs@anvilwalrusden.com
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>> Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>
>
>
>
> --
> Sivasubramanian M
>
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>