On Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 7:21 PM, Milton L Mueller <mueller@syr.edu> wrote:

>We don't keep a cutlass in preparation for a possible headache,

> we keep first aid drugs which we ingest into the same body.

> We should task ICANN to provide those first aids and not scaring it

>with a cutlas which will only worsen the headache

Seun, this is the kind of argument that has made ALAC interventions in this process so frustrating. We understand that you want everything to remain inside ICANN. What we don’t understand is why. Specifically, how that would be good for individual internet uses, or indeed any internet users?

Well what i believe is that a true and efficient accountability can only be achieved from within by the community. My little RIR experience has thought me that. I see this transition as an opportunity for that and i don't think its appropriate to categorise a group's proposal in the manner you have just done because me and you know that there are more frustration items that will happen by the implementation of current cwg proposal

Providing a crude metaphor about cutting off body parts does not, as far as I can tell, tell us anything about how a complete absence of contractual separability would advance the interests of internet users, especially when this so-called cutlass has been available since 1999.

This is indeed why the "metaphor" would be applicable to this situation. I think it was wise to have started in 1999 by contract because the organisation was so young and needs some external protection (that contract for me was not just to make ICANN accountable but also to protect it from collapse). However if we then say that there is now need to move to the next level, it should mean that we now believe the organisation can be sustainable on its own.

Your suggestion that ICANN would provide the “first aid” for problems we think it might actually cause reveals a certain obliviousness to accountability issues that undermines the credibility of your argument.

By ICANN providing "first aid" i refer to the community of ICANN, and ICANN as an organisation knowing those mechanisms exists. The sense of that gives the community and the organisation a sense of relief and sense of caution

You repeatedly reference the RIRs in other messages, but fail to note that the RIRs also plan to have a contractual, separable relationship to ICANN’s IANA. You also fail to note that IETF does, too.

I believe i understand the other communities to some extent:

- The RIR and IETF solution is not a contract "per see", its largely an SLA which does not have any definite period of renewal (unless there is need to re-write the text)

- The RIR and IETF are (with ccTLDs included) separate organisations who is getting a service from IANA operator and the only way such service can be formalised is by an agreement

- The organisation for the gTLD however is ICANN which is servicing itself (just like a typical ccTLD manages its nations country code), so i see a fundamental difference between the gTLD and the other communities which are largely external to ICANN.

In short, the bulk of the Internet community sees a contractual relationship – which is how organizations relate to each other, they are not body parts – as the norm. You are the outlier.

Good you refer to organisations relating to each other because that is indeed what is happening between ICANN and other communities (as i explained above). So maybe if we make those distinctions then we would both appreciate what contractual relationship we are all seeing. I for one would like to see a great sense of accountability within ICANN that will require some principles that will be adhered to by management and community (that on its own can be seen as an agreement)

Thanks

Regards

--MM

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Seun Ojedeji,
Federal University Oye-Ekiti
web: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng
Mobile: +2348035233535
alt email: seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng

The key to understanding is humility - my view !