Re: [CCWG-ACCT] [ianatransition] U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation Full Hearing on 24 May 2016
On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 5:28 AM, Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com> wrote:
Hi,
On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 01:37:20AM +0530, Sivasubramanian M wrote:
In many ways, a soft interim role for the US Government, or a short delay would actually ensure that the transition details are gracefully accepted by the whole world.
As some of us who testified before the Committee today pointed out, there is no evidence for the above claim; and it might cause people to give up on IANA and go do something else.
What if the Transition goes through but causes the world to give up on ICANN ?
Moreover, such an approach wouldn't actually prove anything. As Steve DelBianco pointed out repeatedly, for instance, either the tests will reveal nothing new (because the processes are already running), or else the test is very unlikely to happen (because the new powers are for extreme conditions that we all hope will not happen).
Just for example, if you actually wanted to test whether the EC's ability to overturn the budget had the effects desired, we'd have to invent a crisis that nobody wants in order to see whether the crisis conditions are handled correctly. It is very hard for me to see how that would be a responsible "test" period. Either we're delaying something to perform a "test" that actually tests nothing at all, or else we have to introduce a needless crisis in order to see whether the mechanism works the way we'd like.
I have nowhere talked about tests, nor about lengthening the transition phase by a phase for testing, but about moving towards such an elevated Accountability framework where even tests would be unnecessary.
Worse, we have a consensus, and it's being implemented. If the USG now says to the IANA operational communities that their consensus doesn't count, there is no reason to suppose those communities are going to wait around for the next promise to be broken, and there's no reason to believe that the Internet community generally will continue to find IANA valuable and useful. Both of those outcomes are bad news for the stability of the Internet identifier systems we have; and in my opinion they offer much greater risk than the putative benefit of a "soft" transition.
The promise is now in full view of the whole world, and the transition process is underway, so, why do we talk in terms of the promise being broken? And, are you saying that the Internet Community will NOT find IANA valuable and useful?! Ever? Just because ICANN is to be asked to have a few more hours of conversation (so to speak) on its Accountability framework?? There could be several possible forms of a 'soft' alternative to a quick and unconditional approval of the transition proposal. It does not have to call for a 'test' phase, it does not have to be a complete 'No' to transition, it could indeed be transition on the promised date, but a symbolic transition - to the existing ICANN, as it is, not to a haphazardously reinvented ICANN. Such a symbolic or ceremonial transition could be followed by a 'transition phase' where in NTIA would have make 'soft' interventions. Such a soft alternative path would in no way imply that the existing stability of the Internet identifier system is in anyway compromised. This, again is not the only soft solution, but an off-the-cuff example of several possible soft alternatives to an unconditional approval of the transition proposal, which, on a different note, has arisen out of immense and impressive Community effort that truly demonstrates the mutlistakeholder commitment to ICANN. Sivasubramanian M
Best regards,
A
-- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com _______________________________________________ ianatransition mailing list ianatransition@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ianatransition
-- Sivasubramanian M <https://www.facebook.com/sivasubramanian.muthusamy>
Note: ccs trimmed. On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 11:56:16AM +0530, Sivasubramanian M wrote:
What if the Transition goes through but causes the world to give up on ICANN ?
Do you have some reason to suppose that will happen? But anyway, that is _always_ a possibility. That's what a network of networks is like.
I have nowhere talked about tests, nor about lengthening the transition phase by a phase for testing, but about moving towards such an elevated Accountability framework where even tests would be unnecessary.
So, you wish now to inject a completely different option even than that which Heritage has suggested?
The promise is now in full view of the whole world, and the transition process is underway, so, why do we talk in terms of the promise being broken?
I am talking about the alternative future in which the USG decides not to permit the transition, in the teeth of the consensus for making it happen.
And, are you saying that the Internet Community will NOT find IANA valuable and useful?! Ever? Just because ICANN is to be asked to have a few more hours of conversation (so to speak) on its Accountability framework??
I think that the continued use of IANA is done on a cost-benefit basis, and the longer this goes on the higher the cost gets. There will be a point at which people will say that this is all stupid and find another way to solve their problems. I think we are perilously close to that point.
haphazardously reinvented ICANN. Such a symbolic or ceremonial transition
The point of this transition is not ceremony. It's to get a wheel that does no useful work out of our operations. Period. I don't even know what a ceremonial transition would be, never mind why I'd want one.
This, again is not the only soft solution, but an off-the-cuff example of
I suggest that, instead of pursuing distracting (and frankly more than a little insulting) off-the-cuff proposals that wave away the hard work of the various operational communities and that solve no actual problem anyone has identified, we spend our cycles working to implement the consensus proposal. Best regards, A -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com
Dear Andrew Sullivan, On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 6:38 PM, Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com> wrote:
Note: ccs trimmed.
On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 11:56:16AM +0530, Sivasubramanian M wrote:
What if the Transition goes through but causes the world to give up on ICANN ?
Do you have some reason to suppose that will happen? But anyway, that is _always_ a possibility. That's what a network of networks is like.
I did not want to elaborate, and did not want to outline a scenario which would have the unintended consequences of being emulated. But you yourself have acknowledged such a possibility, I could only add that it is not something that you could be dismissive about.
I have nowhere talked about tests, nor about lengthening the transition phase by a phase for testing, but about moving towards such an elevated Accountability framework where even tests would be unnecessary.
So, you wish now to inject a completely different option even than that which Heritage has suggested?
I have neither studied nor followed any rationale that the Heritage Foundation might have outlined to reach their conclusion about the timing of the transition. I have borrowed one word, "soft" from the Spoken testimony of Brett Schaefer whom I do NOT know, and extracted the relevant passage from his written testimony to quote in my original message on this thread. My rationale is my own, it is a different option. The answer to your question is Yes.
The promise is now in full view of the whole world, and the transition process is underway, so, why do we talk in terms of the promise being broken?
I am talking about the alternative future in which the USG decides not to permit the transition, in the teeth of the consensus for making it happen.
I was concerned about it on a different plane. The Transition proposal, viewed as a proposal from the ICANN Community to the US Government, might look satisfactory to the US Government in most respects. But viewed from a global perspective, Transition could also be seen as becoming an exercise whereby the US Government conveys to the whole world that ICANN Governance is now global. In this sense, once adopted by the US Government, the transition proposal is no longer a proposal from the ICANN Community to the US Government, but notionally becomes a blueprint document from the US Government to the whole world on the transition of oversight of Critical Internet Resources, to convey to the world, "We created ICANN, We continue to host the geographical space for ICANN, we placed it under California jurisdiction based on a certain rationale, but with the deeper intentions of ensuring that the coordination of Internet Names and Numbers is happening in global public interest with the participation of the global multistakeholder community. Post Transition, your trust in the management of DNS would increase, without concerns arising out of the perception that we are controlling the resources" Some aspects of the transition proposal falls short of being a clear message to the Global stakeholders. I felt that the US Government ought to see the Transition proposal as its own document addressed to the World and pay attention from this perspective.
And, are you saying that the Internet Community will NOT find IANA valuable and useful?! Ever? Just because ICANN is to be asked to have a few more hours of conversation (so to speak) on its Accountability framework??
I think that the continued use of IANA is done on a cost-benefit basis, and the longer this goes on the higher the cost gets. There will be a point at which people will say that this is all stupid and find another way to solve their problems. I think we are perilously close to that point.
The cost is a few more million dollars, but the benefits (stakes) are trillions of dollars, if money is the only the concern, and it is not.
haphazardously reinvented ICANN. Such a symbolic or ceremonial transition
The point of this transition is not ceremony. It's to get a wheel that does no useful work out of our operations. Period.
I don't even know what a ceremonial transition would be, never mind why I'd want one.
That would demonstrate and reaffirm the commitment to Transition, set in motion the Transition, while allowing room to get the finer details right.
This, again is not the only soft solution, but an off-the-cuff example of
I suggest that, instead of pursuing distracting (and frankly more than a little insulting) off-the-cuff proposals that wave away the hard work of the various operational communities and that solve no actual problem anyone has identified, we spend our cycles working to implement the consensus proposal.
I used the phrase "off-the-cuff" to imply that it would take expert deliberations to generate soft options, and tried to illustrate the existence of such a soft option. And "off the cuff" implied that the example was prone to be flawed, and not one that was to taken literally. I am posting my views as an individual in this list with participants who are open and receptive. It is allowed, I think. Why is it seen as "a little insulting"? If there is anything insulting on this page, it is your remark that this is "distracting". Even if my comments are unexpected and not (momentarily) in tune with that of the Community I belong to, I mean well. Thank you. Sivasubramanian M
Best regards,
A
-- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com
-- Sivasubramanian M <https://www.facebook.com/sivasubramanian.muthusamy>
On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 11:33:01PM +0530, Sivasubramanian M wrote:
I was concerned about it on a different plane. The Transition proposal, viewed as a proposal from the ICANN Community to the US Government
Since it isn't from the ICANN community, but in fact from three different operational communities only one of which is reasonably identifiable as "ICANN", this would be a mistaken view anyway. But …
falls short of being a clear message to the Global stakeholders. I felt that the US Government ought to see the Transition proposal as its own document addressed to the World and pay attention from this perspective.
… I suspect that this is where your real (and deep) confusion is best signalled. The transition proposal is simply a proposal to eliminate a function that is unneeded and does no work. You seem to be suggesting that some new decision-maker ought to be involved. But that's not the proposal.
Why is it seen as "a little insulting"?
Because people all over the world have worked tirelessly over the past several years to hammer out a detailed consensus that finely balances a whole bunch of considerations, and you are blithely asserting that it would be trivial to come up with something better. And it would be "better" in resepct of solving no concrete problem you have even attempted to describe.
comments are unexpected and not (momentarily) in tune with that of the Community I belong to, I mean well.
If you mean well, I suggest that you describe clearly and succinctly the problem you can identify with the proposal -- one that would be solved by the completely unspecific "soft" transition (which is apparently to include some sort of ceremonial moment at which apparently nothing changes but where we all pretend something has happened). Otherwise, you do not appear to mean well, but instead to mean harm to an implementation that needs our concentration. Best regards, A -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com
Andrew,
On 25 May 2016, at 21:29, Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com> wrote: [...]
The transition proposal is simply a proposal to eliminate a function that is unneeded and does no work. [...]
Nothing in this is simple, and whether it is unneeded is open for debate. However when it suits ICANN it alleges that the function does work.
Why is it seen as "a little insulting"?
Because people all over the world have worked tirelessly over the past several years to hammer out a detailed consensus that finely balances a whole bunch of considerations,
[...] The amount of work can not be used as rationale. Never mind that the fine balance is open to debate. [...] el
It is a bit of a nuisance CCing lists others can't post to.... el -- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini 4
On 25 May 2016, at 21:54, Dr Eberhard W Lisse <el@lisse.na> wrote:
Andrew,
On 25 May 2016, at 21:29, Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com> wrote: [...]
The transition proposal is simply a proposal to eliminate a function that is unneeded and does no work. [...]
Nothing in this is simple, and whether it is unneeded is open for debate.
However when it suits ICANN it alleges that the function does work.
Why is it seen as "a little insulting"?
Because people all over the world have worked tirelessly over the past several years to hammer out a detailed consensus that finely balances a whole bunch of considerations,
[...]
The amount of work can not be used as rationale. Never mind that the fine balance is open to debate.
[...]
el
Did a tree fall in the woods? I didn't hear it. On 27/05/16 10:41, Jefsey wrote:
At 22:54 25/05/2016, Dr Eberhard W Lisse wrote:
The amount of work can not be used as rationale.
Amen. jfc
PS. I never thought I could send you such a mail ! :-)
Dear Co-Chairs, I don't know how The Plonker (tm) managed to circumvent my filters, but I shall make sure that it doesn't happen again. I know the Ombudsman reads this, so I consider myself reported, but then I have been addressing him and referring to him as above for more than 10 years. El -- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini 4
On 27 May 2016, at 10:41, Jefsey <jefsey@jefsey.com> wrote:
At 22:54 25/05/2016, Dr Eberhard W Lisse wrote:
The amount of work can not be used as rationale.
Amen. jfc
PS. I never thought I could send you such a mail ! :-)
participants (4)
-
Andrew Sullivan -
Dr Eberhard W Lisse -
Nigel Roberts -
Sivasubramanian M