+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 >> > >