+ 1


On 5/25/2016 9:42 AM, William Drake wrote:
> Hi
>
> I strongly disagree that a delay will not help anyone.  It will very 
> much help the governments of China, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Iran, et al 
> to convince some of the vast number of developing and transitional 
> country governments that have been on the fence that the whole 
> multistakeholder enterprise is just window dressing for US hegemony 
> and that they now must urgently explore every national and 
> multilateral option to strengthen their ‘cybersovereignty’ and 
> insulation from the dreaded GAFA etc.  The transition fails, we will 
> be dealing with massive ripple effects across multiple issue spaces 
> for years to come.  There are geopolitical reasons NCUC members have 
> advocated the US giving up its role since at least a decade ago in the 
> WSIS meetings.  The hope was to 'remove the target' so governments 
> could maybe focus instead on ways to deal with real issues that impact 
> access to and use of the Internet.  The ‘delay’ makes the target much 
> much bigger, and if somehow the US political process manages to make 
> Il Donald the president, the target will grow by orders of magnitude 
> and fragmentation will become an ever more relevant concern. I guess I 
> shouldn’t complain since I live in Geneva and might get to attend lots 
> more bitterly divided UN meetings etc, so can keep as busy as a 
> Beltway Bandit.
>
> Anyway, here’s the link to the letter from Rubio and four other 
> Republican senators saying that the US should retain control until 
> after the election. 
> http://www.rubio.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?a=files.serve&File_id=96B86CF4-58BE-4E5A-A20A-C9D3D9A0A7CE 
>
>
> Cheers,
>
> Bill
>
>
>> On May 25, 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
>
>
> *************************************************************
> William J. Drake
> International Fellow & Lecturer
>   Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ
>   University of Zurich, Switzerland
> [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]> (direct), 
> [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]> (lists),
> www.williamdrake.org <http://www.williamdrake.org>
> /The Working Group on Internet Governance - 10th Anniversary Reflections/
> New book at http://amzn.to/22hWZxC
> *************************************************************
>

-- 

Matthew Shears | Director, Global Internet Policy & Human Rights Project
Center for Democracy & Technology | cdt.org
E: [log in to unmask] | T: +44.771.247.2987