Good point Carlos. But I think this time will be different. Because this time it is the ICG (and to some extent, the NTIA and Congress) who will be evaluating the comments, not the CWG itself.

If enough people hammer at a specific point that needs fixing, there is a good chance it will be passed back to the CCWG and told to fix it.

In other words, the CWG thinks it has reached a political Pareto optimum (can’t make any change that increases support) but the comment period can pop that bubble.

From: Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Monday, August 10, 2015 5:48 PM
To: Mueller, Milton L <[log in to unmask]>
Cc: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Comment development on the IANA transition proposal and accountability reforms

Dear Milton,

after seeing how many of the comments to the 1st draft were NOT taken into account, I ask myself if it is worth the time….

Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez
_____________________

email: [log in to unmask]
Skype: carlos.raulg
+506 8837 7173 (cel)
+506 4000 2000 (home)
+506 2290 3678 (fax)
_____________________
Apartado 1571-1000

San Jose, COSTA RICA

On Aug 10, 2015, at 2:59 PM, Mueller, Milton L <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

I am surprised at how little discussion we are seeing here about the ICANN accountability and IANA reform proposals.

Let’s get some going!

First, how many of us have actually read the ICG’s combined IANA transition proposal or useful summaries of the proposal? Would it be useful for someone to set out a basic outline of the key elements of the proposal and identify points of controversy upon which NCSG might want to comment?

Second, how many of us have actually read the CCWG’s proposed accountability reforms? Would it be useful for someone to set out a basic outline of the key elements of the proposal and identify points of controversy upon which NCSG might want to comment?

Dr. Milton L. Mueller

Professor, School of Public Policy

Georgia Institute of Technology