+ 1
On 5/25/2016 9:42 AM, William Drake wrote:
Hi
I strongly disagree that a delay will not help anyone. Â 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. Â
The transition fails, we will be dealing with massive ripple effects
across multiple issue spaces for years to come. Â There are geopolitical
reasons NCUC members have advocated the US giving up its role since at
least a decade ago in the WSIS meetings. Â 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. Â 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.Â
http://www.rubio.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?a=files.serve&File_id=96B86CF4-58BE-4E5A-A20A-C9D3D9A0A7CE
Â
Cheers,
Bill
On May 25, 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. Â 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. Â Â 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. Â Â 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. Â Â 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. Â Â 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. Â Â 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 &Â Lecturer
 Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ
 University of Zurich, Switzerland
[log in to unmask]Â
(direct), [log in to unmask]Â
(lists),
  www.williamdrake.org
The Working Group on Internet Governance - 10th AnniversaryÂ
Reflections
New book atÂ
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