ICANN's response to IANA Transition negative propaganda
ICANN has finally attempted a response to the negative transition propaganda: https://www.icann.org/iana-stewardship-questions, linked from a rather bland banner on the ICANN home page. Alan
Thanks for the link, Alan. Unfortunately, it's not just the banner that's bland; this is utterly useless. First, it uses mushy, ill-defined elite-targeted language, starting with the title. What the heck is "stewardship"? ICANN already has a Board that provided the stewardship (ie, develop mission and hires staff to execute). That Board is not going away. This whole mess is about transition of OVERSIGHT: who watches the asylum to ensure that the inmates don't cause public harm? In any case, the moment you use the term "Internet governance", you've already lost any reader who doesn't already know what's going on. This is more of the same old stuff, written in the same language to the same audience for which ICANN has always written. Apparently now run by its legal department, ICANN appears culturally incapable of using street language to even describe what it does (while its opponents, adept at opinion manipulation, have found ICANN to be a very "soft target" in this regard). And finally, the FAQ format itself is a decade too late. At this point there are opinions to be changed and myths to be busted, but no longer do people have questions to be answered. As Alan says, there is negative propaganda to be countered, but we're well past the time at which ICANN was able to have any control over the story. ICANN is beyond merely needing to be informative. It must, to use the military terminology, "win hearts and minds" of those who care about how the Internet is run. This meek attempt at an FAQ wasn't worth the effort. If ever ICANN had an advertising budget, now would be the time to use it -- but not using THIS response. - Evan PS: if this response comes across as somewhat bitter as well as just critical, there is a reason. ICANN has always had(*) a massive problem communicating with the world-at-large. Yet its own community that (does its best to) speak for that community WAS NEVER CONSULTED before these miserable attempts at communications were done. I'm complaining after the fact because our community was never asked for feedback before this heap of garbage was published. What is supposed to be ICANN's great advantage (multi-stakeholderism) turns out to be a weakness because ICANN is completely out of touch with that portion of the stakeholders who don't earn it money. (*) ICANN briefly had the capacity to fix this, but after a brief flirtation with sanity let go the one staffer who had both the ability and the initiative in this field. On 9 September 2016 at 20:53, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote:
ICANN has finally attempted a response to the negative transition propaganda:
https://www.icann.org/iana-stewardship-questions, linked from a rather bland banner on the ICANN home page.
I agree. In the week before the event Montevideo, we suggested us not to talk of "Internet Governance", because ordinary people do not understand. Regards Alberto De: at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] En nombre de Evan Leibovitch Enviado el: viernes, 09 de septiembre de 2016 05:25 p.m. Para: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> CC: At-Large Worldwide <at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Asunto: Re: [At-Large] ICANN's response to IANA Transition negative propaganda Thanks for the link, Alan. Unfortunately, it's not just the banner that's bland; this is utterly useless. First, it uses mushy, ill-defined elite-targeted language, starting with the title. What the heck is "stewardship"? ICANN already has a Board that provided the stewardship (ie, develop mission and hires staff to execute). That Board is not going away. This whole mess is about transition of OVERSIGHT: who watches the asylum to ensure that the inmates don't cause public harm? In any case, the moment you use the term "Internet governance", you've already lost any reader who doesn't already know what's going on. This is more of the same old stuff, written in the same language to the same audience for which ICANN has always written. Apparently now run by its legal department, ICANN appears culturally incapable of using street language to even describe what it does (while its opponents, adept at opinion manipulation, have found ICANN to be a very "soft target" in this regard). And finally, the FAQ format itself is a decade too late. At this point there are opinions to be changed and myths to be busted, but no longer do people have questions to be answered. As Alan says, there is negative propaganda to be countered, but we're well past the time at which ICANN was able to have any control over the story. ICANN is beyond merely needing to be informative. It must, to use the military terminology, "win hearts and minds" of those who care about how the Internet is run. This meek attempt at an FAQ wasn't worth the effort. If ever ICANN had an advertising budget, now would be the time to use it -- but not using THIS response. - Evan PS: if this response comes across as somewhat bitter as well as just critical, there is a reason. ICANN has always had(*) a massive problem communicating with the world-at-large. Yet its own community that (does its best to) speak for that community WAS NEVER CONSULTED before these miserable attempts at communications were done. I'm complaining after the fact because our community was never asked for feedback before this heap of garbage was published. What is supposed to be ICANN's great advantage (multi-stakeholderism) turns out to be a weakness because ICANN is completely out of touch with that portion of the stakeholders who don't earn it money. (*) ICANN briefly had the capacity to fix this, but after a brief flirtation with sanity let go the one staffer who had both the ability and the initiative in this field. On 9 September 2016 at 20:53, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca <mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> > wrote: ICANN has finally attempted a response to the negative transition propaganda: https://www.icann.org/iana-stewardship-questions, linked from a rather bland banner on the ICANN home page. --- El software de antivirus Avast ha analizado este correo electrónico en busca de virus. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
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@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*
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@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@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@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>
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... Regards Sent from my LG G4 Kindly excuse brevity and typos On 10 Sep 2016 20:14, "Sivasubramanian M" <isolatedn@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@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@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@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@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
Seun 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. Sivasubamananian M On Sun, Sep 11, 2016 at 1:09 AM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> wrote:
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@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@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@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@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@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>
I think where it comes from matters or to better put, who is communicating the 101 matters. At this stage, the call needs to come from communities independent of ICANN as I don't think it's enough for ICANN to be doing the talking alone on this one, afterall ICANN only facilitated. The ICG perhaps should play a key role in the talking as well. Regards Sent from my LG G4 Kindly excuse brevity and typos On 10 Sep 2016 20:46, "Sivasubramanian M" <isolatedn@gmail.com> wrote:
Seun
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.
Sivasubamananian M
On Sun, Sep 11, 2016 at 1:09 AM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> wrote:
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/congr ess-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@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@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@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@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@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>
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 ============================== *Carlton A Samuels* *Mobile: 876-818-1799Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* ============================= On Sat, Sep 10, 2016 at 2:39 PM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> wrote:
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@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@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@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@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@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@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
participants (7)
-
Alan Greenberg -
Alberto Soto -
bzs＠theworld.com -
Carlton Samuels -
Evan Leibovitch -
Seun Ojedeji -
Sivasubramanian M