At 04:44 AM 5/12/2015, Milton L Mueller wrote:
>[SNIP]If ALAC or other groups leaning toward eternal internal do not 
>accept this middle ground solution (PTI as separate affiliate) they 
>will halt the progress of the names proposal and create delays that 
>create a very high probability of killing the transition. That is 
>not an exaggeration. If CWG cannot come out of this public comment 
>period with a strong endorsement of the basic approach, there will 
>be no proposal ready for ICANN 53 (Buenos Aires). If that happens, 
>we are forcing NTIA to produce at LEAST a one year extension of the 
>contract. There are people in Congress and the general environment 
>who, when it is extended, will push for a 2-year. Even if it is not 
>a 2 year extension, there are plenty of things that can happen in a 
>year to further delay, obstruct etc.
>
>The eternal internals will never get what they want. The issue is 
>whether they will act as dogs in the manger who prevent anyone from 
>getting anything out of the transition.

I do think, FWIW, that we could all use a clearer statement about why 
this middle ground solution will actually work, in addition to it 
simply being the best compromise available.  It does seem to me that 
it violates (or is an exception to) one of the basic principles: that 
the policymaking and  operational roles should be in different 
hands.  For naming function, at least, that won't quite be true, 
because PTI will be an ICANN subsidiary - with special status and a 
degree of independence, perhaps, but still a part of, and ultimately 
controlled by, the DNS policymaker (ICANN).

That doesn't mean its necessarily a bad idea; sometimes basic 
principles have to be compromised, and need to be flexible and all 
that.  But I think skepticism is appropriate - why should we be 
comfortable with any structure that puts policymaking and operational 
functions into one place?  I think some of us need some more 
persuading on that -

David


> >
> > In a way, I expect that we will have some who can't live with this solution
> > from each of the two extremes.  For some it won't be internal enough, for
> > others it won't be independent enough.  The questions will be, 
> does it solve
> > the biggest concerns of each camp and can enough live with it?
> >
> > avri
> >
> > On 11-May-15 10:31, William Drake wrote:
> > > Hi
> > >
> > >> On May 11, 2015, at 6:24 AM, Milton L Mueller <[log in to unmask]
> > >> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> The same can be said for names and is being said for names. Seun, let
> > >> me make something clear to you and all other ALAC people who have
> > >> tried to stop separability (interesting to know why but that is
> > >> another issue).
> > >
> > > I think a nice capsule summary of the differences between  ALAC (which
> > > is not to say At Large) and NCSG on these issues would be most helpful
> > > if someone could provide.
> > >
> > > Bill
> >
> >
> > ---
> > This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> > http://www.avast.com

*******************************
David G Post - Senior Fellow, Open Technology Institute/New America Foundation
blog (Volokh Conspiracy) http://www.washingtonpost.com/people/david-post
book (Jefferson's Moose)  http://tinyurl.com/c327w2n
music http://tinyurl.com/davidpostmusic publications 
etc.  http://www.davidpost.com
*******************************