Thanks Milton!

Are we going to see the first public appearance before Congress of the 
new CEO this Tuesday???

Please send the link!!!!!

Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez
+506 8837 7176
Skype: carlos.raulg
Current UTC offset: -6.00 (Costa Rica)
On 22 May 2016, at 15:08, Mueller, Milton L wrote:

> Draft letter from Rubio circulating  in the Senate today.  Leaked.  
> Not sure by who and don't know who will sign.  ICANN in emergency mode 
> for hearing Tuesday arguing against delay.
>
> Paul Rosenzweig
> [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
> O: +1 (202) 547-0660
> M: +1 (202) 329-9650
> VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739
> www.redbranchconsulting.com<http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/>
> My PGP 
> Key<http://www.redbranchchttp/redbranchconsulting.com/who-we-are/public-pgp-key/>
>
>
>
> Dear Assistant Secretary Lawrence E. Strickling,
>
> We are writing to express our concerns as the National 
> Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) reviews the 
> proposal from the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers 
> (ICANN) to transfer its role regarding Internet Assigned Number 
> Authority (IANA) functionality to a global multi-stakeholder 
> community.
>
> We commend the work of the current multi-stakeholder community to 
> develop a transition proposal that would maintain the security, 
> stability, and resiliency of the Internet's Domain Name System (DNS),  
>  In the absence of the historical role played by the United States in 
> the IANA functions process,  it is important that any new system 
> enhance accountability and transparency measures to bolster the 
> multi-stakeholder model and ensure that ICANN continues to meet the 
> needs and expectations of customers and partners of the IANA services.
>
> The care and dedication of the community in developing this proposal 
> is clear and there are many positive aspects to the proposal. However, 
> the Internet is too important to allow the transition to occur without 
> certainty that the proposed accountability measures are adequate and 
> that ICANN's new governance structure works properly. Therefore, we 
> respectfully request that you consider an extension of the NTIA 
> contract with ICANN to ensure that the many changes in the transition 
> proposal are implemented, operate as envisioned, and do not contain 
> unforeseen problems, oversights, or complications that could undermine 
> the multi-stakeholder model or threaten the openness, security, 
> stability, or resiliency of the Internet.
>
>
> The transition proposal would create a radically different governance 
> structure for ICANN. Specifically, it would establish an "Empowered 
> Community" that would possess key powers, including dismissal of Board 
> members and approval or disapproval of bylaw changes, designed to hold 
> ICANN and the Board accountable. Although promising in theory, this 
> structure and authority remains untested and it is unclear if the 
> Empowered Community would actually be able to exercise these powers 
> with reasonable facility.
>
> We are also concerned about the expanded role of governments in the 
> transition proposal. Under the proposal, the Government Advisory 
> Committee (GAC) would retain its privileged advisory role of being 
> able to send advice directly to the ICANN Board. However, governments 
> would also be granted new power and authority that they have never 
> possessed in ICANN through the full voting participation of the GAC in 
> the Empowered Community. The integrity of the bottom-up stakeholder 
> process is one of the pillars of the transition and ICANN must prevent 
> governments from exercising undue influence over the Internet. We are 
> concerned that the increased influence of the GAC could be used by 
> governments to pressure ICANN to act or impede multi-stakeholder 
> efforts to block actions supported by governments.  The IANA 
> transition should not provide an opportunity for governments to 
> increase their influence; their role should remain advisory.
>
> Finally, there are many details of the proposal that have yet to be 
> developed, much less finalized. For instance, significant transparency 
> measures have been deferred to "work Stream 2" and will not be 
> developed or be in place before September 2016. Another outstanding 
> issue is ICANN's undefined commitment to human rights. We firmly 
> support human rights, but we are concerned that including this 
> commitment into the ICANN bylaws could encourage the organization to 
> adopt decisions or consider activities outside of ICANN's core 
> competency. There is also the concern that, absent the pressure of the 
> transition, the commitment of ICANN to these matters could be 
> weakened.
>
> Currently, ICANN and Verisign are engaged in a 90 day parallel testing 
> period of the new IANA process.  This test is being conducted 
> alongside the usual process to make sure that the new technical 
> process that would be in place after the transition does not result in 
> errors that could threaten the security, stability, or resiliency of 
> the DNS. This verification is so important that, if any "unexplained 
> differences" arise, both ICANN and Verisign have announced that they 
> would restart the test period.
>
> The accountability and governance of ICANN is just as important as the 
> technical and procedural changes of the transition proposal. Indeed, 
> failings or weaknesses in the accountability mechanisms or governance 
> structure would pose additional potential challenges to the openness 
> of the Internet and the multi-stakeholder model.
> The new governance model that ICANN will transition to is unproven and 
> should also undergo parallel testing. Indeed, the ICANN Board itself 
> suggested last year when considering an early draft of the transition 
> proposal it would be prudent to delay the transition until the new 
> governance structure is in place and "ICANN has demonstrated its 
> experience operating the model and ensuring that the model works in a 
> stable manner." Although the current proposal is substantially 
> different than that earlier draft, the radically different governance 
> structure currently proposed for ICANN should elicit similar caution.
>
> In finalizing your review of this proposal, we request you consider an 
> extension of the NTIA contract with ICANN with the goal of ensuring 
> that the transition establishes a stable system that reinforces the 
> multi-stakeholder model and does not contain unforeseen problems or 
> consequences that could jeopardize the security, stability, and 
> openness of the Internet.
>
>
> Thank you for your attention to this matter.  We look forward to 
> hearing from you