This is a topic I brought up in At-Large circles a number of times.
Those who cared to express a view were of the opinion that one should aim for "a realistic, workable solution", and questioning the monopoly was not one of those.
Jean-Jacques.






----- Mail original -----
De: "Milton L Mueller" <[log in to unmask]>
À: [log in to unmask]
Envoyé: Mardi 12 Mai 2015 10:44:01
Objet: Re: Ominous update on the IANA transition

> -----Original Message-----
> the fully
> locked-in eternal internal undifferentiated IANA solution

Well put. Eternal internal. Amen. Ha.
What puzzles me is where the commitment to that in ALAC comes from. Other than some kind of really strange loyalty to ICANN corporate, what possible justification has been put forward for that? The idea of a "capture" of PTI put forward by the likes of CW has been repeatedly exposed as an absurdity, so what is the problem exactly?

> I think many are
> also looking on the current proposal as something they maybe possibly
> could live with.

Good to know there are reasonable people there. I want to reiterate what I said before, it was a general observation and not directed specifically to Seun: 

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.  


> 
> 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