It's clear that we do have rough consensus on support for the transition. The only clear opponents are from Heritage and Ed. I've explained in a couple of blog posts why the arguments Heritage puts forward are unconvincing at http://internetgovernance.org In particular, the argument for a "test" is self-negating and is not a serious argument as it would destroy the transition not "test" it. It's notable that the only support for US retaining control comes from (a minority of) US-based members. It's a bit contradictory for Ed to complain that there are too many reforms while at the same time saying he wanted a membership model. Membership would have involved larger and more radical changes in ICANN's governance. This contradiction makes one wonder whether Ed's agenda was consistent and coherent to begin with. Similarly, Kathy's argument that "this was supposed to be minor" is completely wrong historically and shows a major misunderstanding of the purpose of the stewardship transition and accountability reforms. Perhaps in ICANN's dreams they were just supposed to be handed permanent control of IANA without any major changes. No one else in the names community thought that was going to happen. There was, as IGP's analyses constantly showed, no way to get rid of U.S. oversight without making major reforms in ICANN's accountability arrangements. The calls for "keeping it simple" were in fact calls to just give away the store and create a dangerous, unaccountable ICANN. One can make a legitimate argument that the structural reforms did not go far enough; specifically, PTI was not independent enough from ICANN, some of the accountability arrangements were weaker than they should be. But we got pushback from ICANN and certain other interests, and compromise is to be expected in any major reform. Those who expected to get exactly what they wanted from a global, diverse MS process involving conflicting interest groups show a certain lack of maturity in their approach. Let's get real, folks: the US Commerce Department has been overly solicitous of business interests, and is constantly subject to nationalistic and weird political pressures from the US Congress. Even with all that cruft, ICANN as it exists today is incredibly unaccountable. The transition plan improves everything. I can't understand why anyone would oppose. It. --MM From: NCSG-Discuss [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Edward Morris Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2016 1:38 PM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: great opening statement by Brett HI McTim, Although I might be surprised, I doubt the NCSG will have a consensus on an approach to the transition. I strongly support the Heritage approach to the transition. It should be noted that Brett made it very clear that he supports the transition. I believe the words he used, words that seem to have confused a few people here, were "I support the transition". It's just that his position, IMHO, takes a far more mature, sophisticated and nuanced approach to the matter than the speed racer approach espoused during the Senate hearing by our commercial colleagues. From the perspective of the noncommercial commiunity, the soft graduated transition is the better option for two very specific reasons: 1. In creating an accountable ICANN we reinvented the corporation. Our new corporate model is untried, untested and is a completely new construction without precedent. 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 there has yet to even have been a comprehensive expensing of the costs of the new model. It would be irresponsible, in my view, to take the irrevocable move of granting ICANN independence without first ascertaining whether the governance model we have created is at least nominally sustainable and workable. The security and stability of the DNS is just too important to gamble with. Let's see if it works before we gamble with the future of the administration of the DNS. 2. Human rights, diversity, staff accountability, transparency, the availability of an ombudsman: these are and have been amongst the highest priorities of the NCSG and our members during the accountability process. Unlike the concerns of the commercial community, our concerns were often orphaned into work stream 2 where the leverage of the transition would no longer exist. This was no accident and I fear the consequences. A soft graduated transition guarantees our concerns and goals will have the same leverage as that possessed by the commercial community when they successfully pursued their interests (such as budgetary input and approval, which many of us in the noncommercial world view as dangerous) in work stream 1. WE and our concerns deserve no less. I understand and respect the view of those within the NCSG and the CSG who want to rush the transition through out of fear it is now or never. I don't agree with their view, finding it a bit simplistic and lacking recognition of complex realities that negate the possibility of an immediate alternative to ICANN springing up during the next few years. I also care little about officials of the Obama administration who would like to leave office having seen the transition accomplished during the last few months of their now dying regime. We have one chance to get this done right, for the world, for our Members and for those ideas and values we represent. Let's take the proper time to do so, to make sure we all have what need. Thanks Brett for your fine testimony today before the United States Senate. Respectfully, Ed ________________________________ From: "McTim" <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2016 5:28 PM To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: great opening statement by Brett Steve supports the transition. It seems that heritage does not...at least not without a soft trial period. I would hope that the NCSG position is the former and not the latter. -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 12:10 PM, Edward Morris <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote: Agreed Carlos. Attached please find a copy of Brett's written testimony today before the United States Senate. ________________________________ From: "Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez G." <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2016 3:38 PM To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> Subject: great opening statement by Brett I liked it very much Brett. Congrats Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez +506 8837 7176<tel:%2B506%208837%207176> Skype: carlos.raulg Current UTC offset: -6.00 (Costa Rica) --