Completely agree as well. On 05/25/2016 09:58 AM, Tatiana Tropina 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] > <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 > > -- Niels ten Oever Head of Digital Article 19 www.article19.org PGP fingerprint 8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4 678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9