[ga-roots] Why ICANN should Plan for the Future

["Patrick Corliss" <patrick@quad.net.au>]

Hi William

> Comparing this situation to car collisions has to be one of the most
> outrageous analogies I've seen used.

It doesn't matter what analogy people use there will always be other people
who say the analogy is outrageous.  Personally I thought it was very apt.

The comparison of the big bully car driver mowing down defenceless bicycle
riders has more than a touch of satire.  Especially when the car gets
damaged in the process.

Here's another comparison.  The process of risk management.  There are
several alternatives (not necessarily mutually exclusive) in a policy of
risk management.  Taking an ordinary situation, perhaps, you can:

(a)    Transfer the risk to somebody else (eg renting rather than buying)
(b)    Defend against known hazards (eg install burglar alarms)
(c)    Lessen the likely damage (eg use fire-safe furniture)
(d)    Spread the risk (eg take out insurance)
(e)    Retrieve the situation (eg put out the fire quickly)

Now it would seem to me that you are quite correct when you say:

> As such any argument about new.net and its visibility is not relevant
> to arguments about ICANN's stability or lack thereof right now.

Sure.  But just because my house is not burning down *right now* doesn't
mean that I should ignore aspects of future risk.  ICANN shouldn't either.

I know you enjoy my stories so I'll tell you another one.  A few years ago I
worked as an investigator with the Australian Securities Commission (as it
was called then).  Any director who had been involved in the management of
three or more "failed companies" had to show cause why they shouldn't be
banned from corporate management for a period of up to 5 years.

When it came to the Tribunal hearing, they were always asked one simple
question.  "Can you tell me what steps have you taken in relation to the
management of your company should we decide to ban you right now?"

Ninety percent would answer "I'm defending the case and don't expect to get
banned.  I haven't taken any steps.  I'll work that out if and when it
happens."

You guessed it.  Such an answer demonstrated to the Tribunal that they
weren't fit to manage a company.  Inevitably they were banned for up to 5
years.  Quite appropriately, I would have thought.

Anyone who provided a detailed contingency plan had a reasonable chance of
avoiding being banned.  They had demonstrated a capacity for planning.

It is fortunate, I guess, that the ICANN Directors are not subject to
Australian law.  There are several provisions which would be very likely to
get them prosecuted.  Not least is the requirement to anticipate problems.

Actually, I'll bet dollars to donuts that you have a whole raft of sensible
contingency plans for your own computer systems . . . .

Thought so !!

Best regards
Patrick Corliss


--
This message was passed to you via the ga-roots@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-roots" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html