However, the "No transition" option is an option that is comparatively less palatable for other stakeholders than for us, one stakeholder of which being the Board/staff. It cannot be seen to be the one preventing a transition. So you should lean towards more of a hard line stance imho. For us, there is no danger of a status quo, imho. NTIA's stance on the matter is good for the long term, and would the process falter that they would come back for a second try later. On 16/12/2015 3:48 PM, Mueller, Milton L wrote: > > My response would be that there is no reason to assume that the board > comments will be accepted. If they are not accepted, and we end up > with CCWG’s 3^rd draft, on net I would vote for it in preference to no > transition. The strengthened IRP and improved mission statement with > explicit limitations are the reasons I would go for it. > > If the board comments are accepted, and we get no inspection, an > eviscerated mission limitation, and no respect for human rights, I > could be swayed to go against it. > > The presence of GAC in the Sole Designator mechanism is disturbing, > and NCSG is indicating to the CCWG that it does not support that. > > *From:*NCSG-Discuss [mailto:[log in to unmask]] *On Behalf > Of *David Post > *Sent:* Tuesday, December 15, 2015 10:55 AM > *To:* [log in to unmask] > *Subject:* Re: The CCWG Accountability Proposal -- Should It Be Rejected > > > It does appear to be a particularly bad combination of (a) a proposal > that has itself been considerably watered down, and (b) a Board that > is suggesting that even that is too /strong,/and needs to be weakened > further. > > David > > > At 08:44 PM 12/14/2015, Paul Rosenzweig wrote: > > At the risk of stirring the pot, I want to ask the community > whether or not the accountability proposal has been so watered > down that the NCSG ought to oppose it outright and, concurrently, > seek agreement from the Commercial users such that the gNSO was > opposed to the transition in its current form. If I were to tally > the reasons to oppose the current draft they would include: > > · Enhanced GAC role through the 2/3 vote rule and there > membership in the Empowered Community > · Incomplete rights of inspection > · Continued board opposition to human rights and mission > statement as drafted > · Process fouls in any number of ways, most recently in the > overly short 21-day comment period on what the Co-Chairs say is > the “final report” > · Enhanced role of ACs in the empowered community to the > detriment of the SOs where policy actually resides (this is above > and beyond the GAC issue already noted) > > I could go on, but frankly, for myself, the proposal seems to have > fallen sufficiently short that I would probably “vote” no, if > votes were being counted. It seems to me that someone needs to > say that out loud …. > > Paul > > Paul Rosenzweig > Red Branch Consulting, PLLC > 509 C St. NE > Washington, DC 20002 > [log in to unmask] > <mailto:[log in to unmask]> > O: +1 (202) 547-0660 > M: +1 (202) 329-9650 > VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 > Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066 > www.redbranchconsulting.com <http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/> > www.paulrosenzweigesq.com <http://www.paulrosenzweigesq.com/> > Link to my PGP Key > <http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=19&Itemid=9> > [] > <http://www.rsaconference.com/events/us16?utm_source=signature&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=speakers-us2016> > > > ******************************* > David G Post - Senior Fellow, Open Technology Institute/New America > Foundation > blog (Volokh Conspiracy) http://www.washingtonpost.com/people/david-post > <http://www.washingtonpost.com/people/david-post>book (Jefferson's > Moose) http://tinyurl.com/c327w2n > <http://tinyurl.com/c327w2n%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0> > music http://tinyurl.com/davidpostmusic > <http://tinyurl.com/davidpostmusic%A0>publications etc. > http://www.davidpost.com > <http://www.davidpost.com%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0/> > ******************************* >