Hi, On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 1:37 PM, Edward Morris <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > HI McTim, > > > Although I might be surprised, I doubt the NCSG will have a consensus on > an approach to the transition. > > I strongly support the Heritage approach to the transition. It should be > noted that Brett made it very clear that he supports the transition. I > believe the words he used, words that seem to have confused a few people > here, were "I support the transition". It's just that his position, IMHO, > takes a far more mature, sophisticated and nuanced approach to the matter > than the speed racer approach espoused during the Senate hearing by our > commercial colleagues. > > From the perspective of the noncommercial commiunity, the soft graduated > transition is the better option for two very specific reasons: > > 1. In creating an accountable ICANN we reinvented the corporation. > We didn't, it is just tinkering around the edges. > Our new corporate model is untried, untested and is a completely new > construction without precedent. > As was ICANN in the earliest days. > 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". There is a letter circulating amongst CS folks supporting the transition, does anyone have the link to that? -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel