OK. I think the difference here is that I don't see a change of IANA functions providers as "nuclear," and while I don't think it is "ordinary" the word "extraordinary" also seems overstated to me. I see it as an organization replacing a bad service provider with a good one. No more - or no less - significant than changing an ISP. To get good accountability in this case you need quick and decisive action to replace an incompetent or rogue operator.
-----Original Message----- From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship- bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Friday, May 15, 2015 5:42 AM To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] update on DT X Separation Process
hi,
I have responded. Several times I thought. Maybe you just did not like my epxlanation.
1. i do not believe that the same group that recommends a so-called nuclear process is the one to execute that process. It is a checks and balances sort of thing. You do not give yourself a task of this magnitude.
2. I see taking a further step in the separation process as needing the same sort of full community review and support that transition requires. This is being defined as an extraordinary event , not a regualr event in the current formulaton.
3. I believe that those who review and accept this transition proposal should be able to have the assurance that the ground is not going to easily slip under them. If we make it too easy to go to RFP or spin out of the PTI, they could be forgiven for insecurity about our proposal
That is why I beleive it is not
Over-bureaucratization of this process
but rather giving a serious issue the proper full community due consideration.
avri
On 15-May-15 11:26, Milton L Mueller wrote:
Avri: I support your concepts of the possible outcomes but I don't understand why a "separation review" is conceived as a new and independent process from the IFR. I've said this before but there has been no answer. If an IFR indicates that the community is so dissatisfied that separation is a live possibility, it seems that action needs to be taken expeditiously instead of launching another review process. Isn't it possible that this should be more like a choice of a service vendor than something like the ICG/IANA stewardship transition? We are not changing stewardship or high-level institutions, we are changing a functions operator. Over-bureaucratization of this process actually works against accountability by making the costs of a switch so high as to be prohibitive.
May I please have a response to this?
--MM
-----Original Message-----
To relate this to the SR, each would present a different set of opportunities for SR action, that is why the 5 possibilities in the SR text are really just examples, an incomplete set in the whole universe of examples, that the SR mechanism could recmmend.
As I mentioned in the call this is my personal reason for thinking that an SR event, needs to be quite similar to the current Transition event. It would be a big deal that the whole community would need to be involved in.
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. http://www.avast.com
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship