thank you Kathy for your excellent comments form the “front row” Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez +506 8837 7176 Skype: carlos.raulg Current UTC offset: -6.00 (Costa Rica) On 24 May 2016, at 14:56, Kathy Kleiman wrote: > Hi All, > > I attended this Senate hearing in person. Bret's testimony was > well-delivered and well-received, as was Steve DelBianco's (Commercial > Stakeholder Group), Andrew Sullivan (Chair Internet Architecture > Board) and the others. > > The questions from the Senators were good. They explored the > difference in Bret's recommendation -- to go slower in the transition, > to test more, etc. - with Steve DelBianco's, Andrew Sullivan's, former > Ambassador Gross' call to move the transition forward as soon as > possible. > > I have to share with you my two cents. The IANA Transition was > supposed to be a "small change" to a process -- a removal of the US > oversight of a procedural checklist (changes to the Root Zone File) in > which the US was exercising a "light touch." The transition was > premised on -- as a few Senators reminded us today --- the idea that > /ICANN had been working well and smoothly/ so a relatively small > change was appropriate. > > But as Ed notes, there is nothing small about this change. It is a > massive reorganization. The changes in powers, rights and appeals is > dramatic. Can anyone assure that these rather dramatic changes will > work smoothly? My sense from today's hearing is that there are > certainly questions... > > Best, Kathy > > On 5/24/2016 3:23 PM, Edward Morris wrote: >> Hi McTim, >> /We didn't, it is just tinkering around the edges/. >> I guess we have a different view of 'tinkering. >> The changes have DOUBLED the length of ICANN's bylaws. They have >> given the community ultimate authority over seven essential ICANN >> functions, including the budget. They have completely changed >> internal ICANN governance, with all SOAC's now taking on new roles. >> The GAC and ALAC are no longer merely advisory and the GNSO no longer >> largely or exclusively about domain names. The community will even >> have a new legal essence. >> The bill: over $8 million in independent legal fees. To date. >> That's not tinkering. That's a corporate reorganisation. >> >> Our new corporate model is untried, untested and is a completely >> new construction without precedent. >> >> /As was ICANN in the earliest days./ >> Are you referring to ICANN 1.0, that was such a rousing disaster that >> there almost immediately had to be an ICANN 2.0? >> You do recall the rather problematic elections for Board members? >> The internet is too integral to the world economy today to take >> chances like that. If this proposal does not work the replacement >> will not be another ICANN. It's likely to be something far worse. >> That's why we need to take the time to do this right. >> >> 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"./ >> What has been delayed for years McTim? A corporate reorganisation? Or >> are you misrepresenting what I wrote? >> It's easy to say onward with the transition, without knowing the >> specifics. It's easy to pretend we're just going forward with the >> same old ICANN prettied up. It's easy to say that but it is not >> accurate. >> This is a new ICANN. No one knows if it is going to work. No one. >> A soft transition is the responsible, reasonable mature way to >> proceed. It's also the only way for the NCSG to ensure that many of >> our priorities that have been fobbed off into work stream 2 get the >> consideration they deserve. >> Then, again, those of us who just wrote the "Dummies Guide To >> Restructuring a Multinational Multi-Stakeholder California Public >> Benefits Corporation in 14 months or less" may have gotten most >> things right. If it goes forward, I hope we did. We tried. I'm just >> not willing to bet the DNS on our work without first ensuring it >> nominally works. >> Ed