+ 1 On 5/25/2016 9:42 AM, William Drake wrote: > Hi > > I strongly disagree that a delay will not help anyone. It will very > much help the governments of China, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Iran, et al > to convince some of the vast number of developing and transitional > country governments that have been on the fence that the whole > multistakeholder enterprise is just window dressing for US hegemony > and that they now must urgently explore every national and > multilateral option to strengthen their ‘cybersovereignty’ and > insulation from the dreaded GAFA etc. The transition fails, we will > be dealing with massive ripple effects across multiple issue spaces > for years to come. There are geopolitical reasons NCUC members have > advocated the US giving up its role since at least a decade ago in the > WSIS meetings. The hope was to 'remove the target' so governments > could maybe focus instead on ways to deal with real issues that impact > access to and use of the Internet. The ‘delay’ makes the target much > much bigger, and if somehow the US political process manages to make > Il Donald the president, the target will grow by orders of magnitude > and fragmentation will become an ever more relevant concern. I guess I > shouldn’t complain since I live in Geneva and might get to attend lots > more bitterly divided UN meetings etc, so can keep as busy as a > Beltway Bandit. > > Anyway, here’s the link to the letter from Rubio and four other > Republican senators saying that the US should retain control until > after the election. > http://www.rubio.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?a=files.serve&File_id=96B86CF4-58BE-4E5A-A20A-C9D3D9A0A7CE > > > Cheers, > > Bill > > >> On May 25, 2016, at 08:33, James Gannon <[log in to unmask] >> <mailto:[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] <mailto:[log in to unmask]> >> on behalf of [log in to unmask] >> <mailto:[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] >>> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> >>> To: [log in to unmask] <mailto:[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 > > > ************************************************************* > William J. Drake > International Fellow & Lecturer > Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ > University of Zurich, Switzerland > [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]> (direct), > [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]> (lists), > www.williamdrake.org <http://www.williamdrake.org> > /The Working Group on Internet Governance - 10th Anniversary Reflections/ > New book at http://amzn.to/22hWZxC > ************************************************************* > -- Matthew Shears | Director, Global Internet Policy & Human Rights Project Center for Democracy & Technology | cdt.org E: [log in to unmask] | T: +44.771.247.2987