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