Sent from my LG G4
Kindly excuse brevity and typos
On 26 May 2016 6:10 p.m., Kleinwächter, Wolfgang <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> And we should not forget that the "Marrakesh Consensus" was a unique moment in history. If you re-open the package, parts of the community would think twice whether they would join again such a consensus in two years from now. I talked to a substantial number of governments (including GAC members) who already the next morning lamented that they join the agreement they do not like. Each government could have vetoed the consensus in the dramatic nighjt of Marrakesh nobody wanted to be the "bad guy". To get them back in 2018 is just an illusion.
>

SO: +100 until the full package was submitted, I was still amazed at the GAC approach to the proposal. It was an history I don't think can be re-written, not with what has happened post-submission and definitely not if the new bylaw is in-place without the USG's hands off the grip. Communities shifted grounds(even though it hurts) because of the bigger picture/goal which is the transition. Hopefully we will not all be asking at some point: W--T--F have we done with our time.

> And BTW, Internet censorship in Turkey (a NATO Country), China or Russia has nothing to to with the IANA function. It is a slippery slope if Senators in the US would start to argue that a delay of the IANA transition could reduce Internet censorship in undemocratic countries.
>
SO: Indeed! Although if this doesn't go through, majority of the internet users may now understand what "internet defragmentation" mean in practice.

Cheers!

> Wolfgang
>
>
>
> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: NCSG-Discuss im Auftrag von Mueller, Milton L
> Gesendet: Do 26.05.2016 18:26
> An: [log in to unmask]
> Betreff: Re: [NCSG-Discuss] great opening statement by Brett
>
>
>
> From: David Post [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
>
> But that's not the goal, in my eyes. The goal is to create an institution that can manage these resources in a reasonable way, for the next [many] years.
>
> MM: As Avri noted, the goal of the stewardship transition was to...transition, i.e. get the US govt out of its current role. I am flabbergasted by the fact that you do not see the US oversight role as a broken part of the institution.
>
> MM: As someone who has written about early post-revolutionary America, I wonder how you would respond to my argument "all these new democratic government models are new and untested. We don't really know how well they will work. Why doesn't the United States retain its status as a British colony under the King for a few years, and let him decide if the experiment has worked?"
>
> All I'm suggesting is that it would hardly seem unreasonable, to me, if the USG took the position that while it is signing off on the transition, it is doing so subject to a kind of probationary period that will enable us all to understand better whether and how it actually works. Perhaps other countries will view that as a terribly untrustworthy move, perhaps they won't - I do think it helps that it is, fundamentally, quite a reasonable position to take.
>
> MM: So you assume that the USG is NOT part of the machine, it is a deus ex machina that we can invoke at any time to insert an entirely rational, undistorted corrective action on whatever happens?