Completely agree as well.
On 05/25/2016 09:58 AM, Tatiana Tropina wrote:
> Well said, James.
> +1 to everything.
> Agree with everyone who says that the delay and tests are unnecessary
> and will be just used as instruments to bury the transition.
>
>
> Best regards
> Tatiana
>
>
>
> On 25 May 2016 at 08:33, James Gannon <[log in to unmask]
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
>
> I agree delay is not going to help anyone, ‘testing’ the plan will
> bring us nowhere as the very powers that people have concerns over
> and wish to test will likely not be used in any reasonable testing
> period. We will likely not have to spill the board, file community
> IRPs against ICANN or take recourse to the California courts, and to
> insinuate otherwise is playing to the people who like to hear the
> media spin reels around the transition.
>
> Our proposal is sound, is based in strong governance and law, and is
> ready to be executed. We either believe in the ability of the
> community to build design and execute or we don’t.
>
> I do.
>
> -James
>
>
>
>
> On 25/05/2016, 06:55, "NCSG-Discuss on behalf of Dorothy K. Gordon"
> <[log in to unmask]
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]> on behalf of
> [log in to unmask]
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
>
> >There will always be issues that can be used to avoid the
> transition. Delay is really not going to help in this case. I
> believe delay will kill this, and we will look back with regret if
> it does not go forward now.
> >best regards
> >DG
> >
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: "Ron Wickersham" <[log in to unmask]
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
> >To: [log in to unmask]
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
> >Sent: Wednesday, May 25, 2016 5:11:00 AM
> >Subject: Re: great opening statement by Brett
> >
> >i'm not convinced that going slow is any kind of attempt to kill the
> >transistion. i share the concerns Ed and Kathy have enumerated, and
> >am extremely uncomfortable with the important items that were shuffled
> >off into workstream 2 just to get these contentious and very important
> >issues off the table. dividing the work up is ok, but get the whole
> >work stream parts 1 and parts 2 and if need be parts 3 and 4 resolved
> >before the actual transition.
> >
> >as both a NCUC and NCSG member as well as a USA citizen, i don't see
> >how my representatives can approve a half-finished plan where the
> >stakeholders have not resolved important issues -- the only thing
> >the stakeholders have addressed is how to divide the work into two
> >streams and agreed on the first part only.
> >
> >not every one who shares these same concerns is a USA citizen, these
> >concerns are not US centric at all. and with the change in leadership
> >of ICANN in the middle of the process affects the continuity of the
> >deliberations and adds additional uncertinty.
> >
> >i'm on the side of proceeding more slowly. a finished good plan that
> >is agreed (really a compromise) between all stakeholders will stand on
> >its own merit and will succeed.
> >
> >by overloading with too many separate, sometimes overlapping, groups
> >makes it impossible for Non-commercial volunteers to participate in
> >all the important steps. still we can recognize if the final plan
> >is insufficient to address our valid interests, so we have to see the
> >end product to adequately judge our position.
> >
> >-ron
>
>
--
Niels ten Oever
Head of Digital
Article 19
www.article19.org
PGP fingerprint 8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4
678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9
|