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