Completely agree as well.

On 05/25/2016 09:58 AM, Tatiana Tropina wrote:
> Well said, James. 
> +1 to everything.
> Agree with everyone who says that the delay and tests are unnecessary
> and will be just used as instruments to bury the transition. 
> 
> 
> Best regards
> Tatiana 
> 
> 
> 
> On 25 May 2016 at 08:33, James Gannon <[log in to unmask]
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
> 
>     I agree delay is not going to help anyone, ‘testing’ the plan will
>     bring us nowhere as the very powers that people have concerns over
>     and wish to test will likely not be used in any reasonable testing
>     period. We will likely not have to spill the board, file community
>     IRPs against ICANN or take recourse to the California courts, and to
>     insinuate otherwise is playing to the people who like to hear the
>     media spin reels around the transition.
> 
>     Our proposal is sound, is based in strong governance and law, and is
>     ready to be executed. We either believe in the ability of the
>     community to build design and execute or we don’t.
> 
>     I do.
> 
>     -James
> 
> 
> 
> 
>     On 25/05/2016, 06:55, "NCSG-Discuss on behalf of Dorothy K. Gordon"
>     <[log in to unmask]
>     <mailto:[log in to unmask]> on behalf of
>     [log in to unmask]
>     <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
> 
>     >There will always be issues that can be used to avoid the
>     transition. Delay is really not going to help in this case.  I
>     believe delay will kill this, and we will look back with regret if
>     it does not go forward now.
>     >best regards
>     >DG
>     >
>     >----- Original Message -----
>     >From: "Ron Wickersham" <[log in to unmask]
>     <mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
>     >To: [log in to unmask]
>     <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>     >Sent: Wednesday, May 25, 2016 5:11:00 AM
>     >Subject: Re: great opening statement by Brett
>     >
>     >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
> 
> 

-- 
Niels ten Oever
Head of Digital

Article 19
www.article19.org

PGP fingerprint    8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4
                   678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9