thank you Kathy for your excellent comments form the “front row”

Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez
+506 8837 7176
Skype: carlos.raulg
Current UTC offset: -6.00 (Costa Rica)
On 24 May 2016, at 14:56, Kathy Kleiman wrote:

> 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