Agree with Matt here. While I can understand Brett’s concerns, this is a proposal that no one is fully satisfied with. That is testimony to the strength of deliberative forces. We shouldn’t condition its working on some sort of trial or test period, because it opens a window for inter-governmental politicking. (What can other govts do and receive in return for the US to keep its word after 2 years). These backroom negotiations have already happened between March 2014 and now. Let us not prolong it. Other stakeholders will miss out.


> On 25-May-2016, at 2:50 AM, Seun Ojedeji <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> 
> Sent from my LG G4
> Kindly excuse brevity and typos
> On 24 May 2016 9:58 p.m., "Kathy Kleiman" <[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > 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." .....
> > 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. 
> >
> SO: Pardon my manners but NCSG played significant role in making the proposal what it is today.
> 
> >
> Can anyone assure that these rather dramatic changes will work smoothly?  My sense from today's hearing is that there are certainly questions... 
> >
> SO: Questions not answered in the proposal? Or questions we think can only be answered under NTIA's watch. It will be unfortunate on both counts.
> 
> Regards
> 
> > 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 
> >>  
> >>  
> >>  
> >>  
> >>  
> >>  
> >>  
> >>  
> >
> >