+1




Regards,
Ganeswar Sahoo
*Domain Tech Solutions*
12, Naya Bans, Sector -15
Noida 201301, Delhi NCR
FB: https://fb.com/domaintech
URL: www.domaintechsolutions.com
Email: [log in to unmask]

*DOMAIN.  WEB HOSTING. EMAIL. SEO . SECURITY*




On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 1:28 PM, Tatiana Tropina <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:

> Well said, James.
> +1 to everything.
> Agree with everyone who says that the delay and tests are unnecessary and
> will be just used as instruments to bury the transition.
>
>
> Best regards
> Tatiana
>
>
>
> On 25 May 2016 at 08:33, James Gannon <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>> I agree delay is not going to help anyone, ‘testing’ the plan will bring
>> us nowhere as the very powers that people have concerns over and wish to
>> test will likely not be used in any reasonable testing period. We will
>> likely not have to spill the board, file community IRPs against ICANN or
>> take recourse to the California courts, and to insinuate otherwise is
>> playing to the people who like to hear the media spin reels around the
>> transition.
>>
>> Our proposal is sound, is based in strong governance and law, and is
>> ready to be executed. We either believe in the ability of the community to
>> build design and execute or we don’t.
>>
>> I do.
>>
>> -James
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 25/05/2016, 06:55, "NCSG-Discuss on behalf of Dorothy K. Gordon" <
>> [log in to unmask] on behalf of
>> [log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>
>> >There will always be issues that can be used to avoid the transition.
>> Delay is really not going to help in this case.  I believe delay will kill
>> this, and we will look back with regret if it does not go forward now.
>> >best regards
>> >DG
>> >
>> >----- Original Message -----
>> >From: "Ron Wickersham" <[log in to unmask]>
>> >To: [log in to unmask]
>> >Sent: Wednesday, May 25, 2016 5:11:00 AM
>> >Subject: Re: great opening statement by Brett
>> >
>> >i'm not convinced that going slow is any kind of attempt to kill the
>> >transistion.   i share the concerns Ed and Kathy have enumerated, and
>> >am extremely uncomfortable with the important items that were shuffled
>> >off into workstream 2 just to get these contentious and very important
>> >issues off the table.   dividing the work up is ok, but get the whole
>> >work stream parts 1 and parts 2 and if need be parts 3 and 4 resolved
>> >before the actual transition.
>> >
>> >as both a NCUC and NCSG member as well as a USA citizen, i don't see
>> >how my representatives can approve a half-finished plan where the
>> >stakeholders have not resolved important issues -- the only thing
>> >the stakeholders have addressed is how to divide the work into two
>> >streams and agreed on the first part only.
>> >
>> >not every one who shares these same concerns is a USA citizen, these
>> >concerns are not US centric at all.   and with the change in leadership
>> >of ICANN in the middle of the process affects the continuity of the
>> >deliberations and adds additional uncertinty.
>> >
>> >i'm on the side of proceeding more slowly.   a finished good plan that
>> >is agreed (really a compromise) between all stakeholders will stand on
>> >its own merit and will succeed.
>> >
>> >by overloading with too many separate, sometimes overlapping, groups
>> >makes it impossible for Non-commercial volunteers to participate in
>> >all the important steps.   still we can recognize if the final plan
>> >is insufficient to address our valid interests, so we have to see the
>> >end product to adequately judge our position.
>> >
>> >-ron
>>
>
>