Colleagues,

With reference to my withdrawal as a candidate several sentences of clarification are in order here. In some sense I am an ICANN “newbie” although I was involved in the Haiti ccTLD saga years ago, my organization’s NPOC membership approved only just over six months ago. There is always the risk, especially in online discussion, that a newbie will misread the culture of the community, or that newbie comment will be misread. While I prefer to work quietly in the background on deliverables, I want to clear a bit of the air here.

For the IANA transition coordinating group election process expressions of support, endorsement, and in due course assessments, are part of the process, and the process for elections is there. What these newbie eyes/ears were sensitive to was a vein within the discussion with questions about elements of the process. Process concerns should be address prior to a process, not within a process, I worried that my candidacy risked being a lightning rod feeding a diversion. There are multiple qualified candidates among us, and there are multiple ways of impacting on the IANA transition proposal. That is the beauty of a multistakeholder model.

I am not a candidate but I am not gone. To use Fadi’s core values context, I personally view a successful multistakeholder component of the IANA transition proposal as an essential core element not only for a successful IANA transition, and for the future of the multistakeholder model within ICANN. I also view it as an essential component of all governance process, at all levels, in the 21st Century. The Internet ecosystemm will become as pervassive as gravity, and ICANN is a pioneer here.

Sam L