Hi,

On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 1:37 PM, Edward Morris <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> HI McTim,
>
>
> Although I might be surprised, I doubt the NCSG will have a consensus on
> an approach to the transition.
>
> I strongly support the Heritage approach to the transition. It should be
> noted that Brett made it very clear that he supports the transition. I
> believe the words he used, words that seem to have confused a few people
> here, were "I support the transition".  It's just that his position, IMHO,
> takes a far more mature, sophisticated and nuanced approach to the matter
> than the speed racer approach  espoused during the Senate hearing by our
> commercial colleagues.
>
> From the perspective of the noncommercial commiunity, the soft graduated
> transition is the better option for two very specific reasons:
>
> 1. In creating an accountable ICANN we reinvented the corporation.
>

We didn't, it is just tinkering around the edges.



> Our new corporate model is untried, untested and is a completely new
> construction without precedent.
>

As was ICANN in the earliest days.



> 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".

There is a letter circulating amongst CS folks supporting the transition,
does anyone have the link to that?

-- 
Cheers,

McTim
"A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route
indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel