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