thank you Kathy for your excellent comments form the “front row”
Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez
+506 8837 7176
Skype: carlos.raulg
Current UTC offset: -6.00 (Costa Rica)
On 24 May 2016, at 14:56, Kathy Kleiman wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> I attended this Senate hearing in person. Bret's testimony was
> well-delivered and well-received, as was Steve DelBianco's (Commercial
> Stakeholder Group), Andrew Sullivan (Chair Internet Architecture
> Board) and the others.
>
> The questions from the Senators were good. They explored the
> difference in Bret's recommendation -- to go slower in the transition,
> to test more, etc. - with Steve DelBianco's, Andrew Sullivan's, former
> Ambassador Gross' call to move the transition forward as soon as
> possible.
>
> I have to share with you my two cents. The IANA Transition was
> supposed to be a "small change" to a process -- a removal of the US
> oversight of a procedural checklist (changes to the Root Zone File) in
> which the US was exercising a "light touch." The transition was
> premised on -- as a few Senators reminded us today --- the idea that
> /ICANN had been working well and smoothly/ so a relatively small
> change was appropriate.
>
> But as Ed notes, there is nothing small about this change. It is a
> massive reorganization. The changes in powers, rights and appeals is
> dramatic. Can anyone assure that these rather dramatic changes will
> work smoothly? My sense from today's hearing is that there are
> certainly questions...
>
> Best, Kathy
>
> On 5/24/2016 3:23 PM, Edward Morris wrote:
>> Hi McTim,
>> /We didn't, it is just tinkering around the edges/.
>> I guess we have a different view of 'tinkering.
>> The changes have DOUBLED the length of ICANN's bylaws. They have
>> given the community ultimate authority over seven essential ICANN
>> functions, including the budget. They have completely changed
>> internal ICANN governance, with all SOAC's now taking on new roles.
>> The GAC and ALAC are no longer merely advisory and the GNSO no longer
>> largely or exclusively about domain names. The community will even
>> have a new legal essence.
>> The bill: over $8 million in independent legal fees. To date.
>> That's not tinkering. That's a corporate reorganisation.
>>
>> Our new corporate model is untried, untested and is a completely
>> new construction without precedent.
>>
>> /As was ICANN in the earliest days./
>> Are you referring to ICANN 1.0, that was such a rousing disaster that
>> there almost immediately had to be an ICANN 2.0?
>> You do recall the rather problematic elections for Board members?
>> The internet is too integral to the world economy today to take
>> chances like that. If this proposal does not work the replacement
>> will not be another ICANN. It's likely to be something far worse.
>> That's why we need to take the time to do this right.
>>
>> Many of us in the NCSG preferred a membership model based upon
>> California statute that had greater certainty. Our views were
>> rejected. I don't know if the model we have created will actually
>> work as intended. No one does. This was so rushed
>>
>> /In fact is has been delayed for many years....not "rushed"./
>> What has been delayed for years McTim? A corporate reorganisation? Or
>> are you misrepresenting what I wrote?
>> It's easy to say onward with the transition, without knowing the
>> specifics. It's easy to pretend we're just going forward with the
>> same old ICANN prettied up. It's easy to say that but it is not
>> accurate.
>> This is a new ICANN. No one knows if it is going to work. No one.
>> A soft transition is the responsible, reasonable mature way to
>> proceed. It's also the only way for the NCSG to ensure that many of
>> our priorities that have been fobbed off into work stream 2 get the
>> consideration they deserve.
>> Then, again, those of us who just wrote the "Dummies Guide To
>> Restructuring a Multinational Multi-Stakeholder California Public
>> Benefits Corporation in 14 months or less" may have gotten most
>> things right. If it goes forward, I hope we did. We tried. I'm just
>> not willing to bet the DNS on our work without first ensuring it
>> nominally works.
>> Ed
|