Exactly one of the reasons why using the accountability reforms as an incentive may not really draw much water for a congressman who only care about ultimate steward of IANA to be within the walls of US govt. Regards PS: Thought from a non political guy who knows little or nothing about US politics except the ones he reads and observe from thousands of miles away. ;-) Sent from my LG G4 Kindly excuse brevity and typos On 10 Sep 2016 19:06, "Paul Rosenzweig" < [log in to unmask]> wrote: Milton Don’t you believe the Board when it promises that the accountability changes will happen no matter what the transition? Or maybe you don’t recall that a member of the Commercial Stakeholder Group asked the board to confirm that “Even in the event that there were some political problem with the transition, it is your intention that we will have implemented the bylaws changes. That the accountability reforms are done and that we will have implemented the other aspects and that political impediment to the transition will not prevent the implementation of those bylaws reforms.” ICANN board member Bruce Tonkin answered on behalf of the board: “So the only caveat in that case…is if the NTIA wished to continue its agreement, we would just need to make sure that any changes were not in conflict with that agreement, which really doesn’t involve much in the way of any of the accountability work that you’ve been involved in.” ICANN board member Cherine Chalaby added: “So I’d like to add to what Bruce is saying. Basically on the accountability reforms, I think the train has left the station and the reasons for that is the community has come to an agreement. I mean, if the community did not come to an agreement, it would be a different thing. So I think they are good accountability measures and we’re committed to go forward with it, even if there are political positions and such. So subject to some of the caveats that Bruce has done, we’re all in support of that.” Video and initial transcript available at ICANN Public Meetings, “Joint Meeting of the ICANN Board & the Commercial Stakeholders | Adobe Connect: Full [EN],” March 8, 2016, https://meetings.icann.org/en/marrakech55/schedule/tue- board-csg/ac-board-csg-08mar16-en. Cheers Paul Paul Rosenzweig [log in to unmask] My PGP Key: http://redbranchconsulting.com/who-we-are/public-pgp-key/ *From:* NCSG-Discuss [mailto:[log in to unmask]] *On Behalf Of *Mueller, Milton L *Sent:* Saturday, September 10, 2016 12:45 PM *To:* [log in to unmask] *Subject:* Re: Transition: For US Citizens (apologies for problems with earlier versions) “IANA Stewardship Transition” is a total loser as far as political rhetoric goes. The general public doesn’t know what IANA is, what the heck “stewardship” of it means, and “transition” is a very vague term. That phrase only means something to people within the process, and it still doesn’t encompass the accountability dimension. I now always refer to it as the “ICANN reforms.” Most people know what ICANN is (that is what the debate is really about, after all), and the language makes it clear that by stopping the transition the opponents are also preventing the reform of ICANN’s accountability. *From:* NCSG-Discuss [mailto:[log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>] *On Behalf Of *Michael Oghia *Sent:* Saturday, September 10, 2016 5:14 AM *To:* [log in to unmask] *Subject:* Re: Transition: For US Citizens (apologies for problems with earlier versions) Good point Wolfgang, plus it is more succinct. -Michael On Sat, Sep 10, 2016 at 11:06 AM, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" < [log in to unmask]> wrote: I prefer the official ICANN language "IANA Stewardship Transition": https://www.icann.org/iana-stewardship-questions Wolfgang -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: NCSG-Discuss im Auftrag von Subrenat, Jean-Jacques Gesendet: Sa 10.09.2016 10:12 An: [log in to unmask] Betreff: Re: [NCSG-Discuss] Transition: For US Citizens (apologies for problems with earlier versions) Hello Michael, as a member of the ICG, but writing here in a private capacity, I would like to point out the dangers of using the term "transition" too loosely. The proposal submitted by the ICG, based on input from the global Internet community, does not call for the transition, in other words the transfer of IANA, the entity itself. As you are aware, the original intent of the United States Administration, as confirmed again by the NTIA in its instructions of 2014, was and is the transition OF OVERSIGHT of the IANA Functions. For anyone not fully versed in Internet matters, and there may be a handful of them in legislative bodies in various countries, repeating that what is at stake is the TRANSITION OF IANA amounts to waving a red flag, suggestive of slyly abandoning sovereign rights. We must make clear, once again, that it is the TRANSITION OF OVERSIGHT we are talking about. I plead with you, and with all the colleagues who have posted a great number of messages on this thread, to make sure that the proper terminology is used, failing which those messages may be counter-productive. Regards, Jean-Jacques. ----- Mail original ----- De: "Michael Oghia" <[log in to unmask]> À: [log in to unmask] Envoyé: Samedi 10 Septembre 2016 09:14:05 Objet: Re: Transition: For US Citizens (apologies for problems with earlier versions) Un updated version of this letter with hyperlinks and a call to oppose S3034 that I just sent to Mitch McConnell as well (UofL = University of Louisville): Dear Mr. McConnell, Hello, my name is Michael Oghia. I am a U.S. citizen and UofL alumnus currently residing in Belgrade, Serbia, and I work as an independent consultant within the Internet governance community. I am a member of multiple constituencies of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), including the Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group (NCSG). As you know, the transition of the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) to the global multi-stakeholder community is supposed to occur on 30 September but is facing major opposition, often which is fueled by fear, misinformation, partisan politics, and a lack of understanding. As a Kentucky citizen and member of the Internet governance community, I adamantly urge you to support the transition as well as oppose S3034 (the Protecting Internet Freedom Act). I cannot stress to you enough how this issue is absolutely imperative for the United States as well as the global Internet community. As National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) chief Larry Stickler told Politico (based on previous testimony to Congress): "It's important for the future of the Internet that the transition not be blocked on Sept. 30 ... the delay would be 'giving a gift to Russia and China.' ... government had spent 'two years developing a plan,' and abandoning it would 'hurt the credibility of America in the eyes of the rest of the world.'" Mr. McConnell, please, as one of your constituents I beg you -- do not fall into the trap of useless, partisan politics on this issue. The IANA transition will increase the accountability and transparency of ICANN, better safeguard the domain name system (DNS) and wider Internet as a global resource, and greatly enhance trust in U.S. leadership. I was initially hesitant to send this email but I hope that my plea speaks to your integrity. If anything, I ask your team to contact me at any time if you would like to know more about the transition from a non-partisan, non-political perspective, and to research information about the transition from a variety of sources (see: https://www.icann.org/iana- stewardship-questions for ICANN's direct response, as well as http://bit.ly/2cef7B2 and http://bit.ly/2cefIlT for more information). Unlike some of the misinformation spreading across certain political channels, I can vouch for this plan. Moreover, as someone working in the field, I work with and personally know many of the people who wrote the text of the transition. As such, I absolutely guarantee that the transition is better for U.S. interests than not doing so. Thank you for your service to the people of Kentucky. Sincerely, Michael J. Oghia Jackson, Breathitt County, Kentucky iGmena communications manager 2016 ISOC IGF returning ambassador Independent #netgov consultant & editor Email: [log in to unmask] Twitter: https://www.twitter.com/mikeoghia LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/mikeoghia On Fri, Sep 9, 2016 at 10:39 AM, Michael Oghia < [log in to unmask] > wrote: Hi Ed, It's my pleasure. Indeed, calling can be a bit tricky. I already recieved a confirmation receipt of my email, and I too am curious to see his stance (assuming he has one). I also tweeted his press secretary asking if he has a stance. So, of course, I will share. Again, thanks for putting this together. And actually, I apologize for forgetting to include a request for him to oppose S3034. Best, -Michael On Fri, Sep 9, 2016 at 10:06 AM, Edward Morris < [log in to unmask] > wrote: Michael, Thank you so much for this and for your excellent prototype e-mail.. Although my experience suggests that calls do generate a bit greater impact, in situations like yours where you are so far away from home an e-mail like yours is a great idea. Thank you so much for doing this! If you get a response, Michael, please be so kind as to share with us. I'm personally unaware of any position Senator Paul has taken on the issue - let's hope your message can help make it a positive one! Thanks again for your great work, Ed Sent from my iPhone On 9 Sep 2016, at 06:58, Michael Oghia < [log in to unmask] > wrote: Hi all, An update: I just sent to Rand Paul, a Republican senator from Kentucky (the state where I am registered to vote). I have more faith that he and his team will respond than Mitch McConnell, a senior Republican senator from Kentucky who is the Senate majority leader. I never bother messaging McConnell about anything that is remotely partisan because it is, frankly, futile. Here is my letter in case someone wants to use it as a template and add/modify it: Dear Dr. Paul, Hello, my name is Michael Oghia. I am a U.S. citizen currently residing in Belgrade, Serbia, and I work as an independent consultant within the Internet governance community. I am a member of multiple constituencies of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), including the Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group (NCSG). As you know, the transition of the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) to the global multi-stakeholder community is supposed to occur on 30 September but is facing major opposition, often which is fueled by fear, misinformation, partisan politics, and a lack of understanding. As a Kentucky citizen and member of the Internet governance community, I adamantly urge you to support the transition. As National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) chief Larry Stickler told Politico (based on previous testimony to Congress): "It's important for the future of the Internet that the transition not be blocked on Sept. 30 ... the delay would be 'giving a gift to Russia and China.' ... government had spent 'two years developing a plan,' and abandoning it would 'hurt the credibility of America in the eyes of the rest of the world.'" Dr. Paul, please -- do not fall into the trap of useless, partisan politics on this issue. The IANA transition will increase the accountability of ICANN, better safeguard the domain name system (DNS) and wider Internet as a global resource, and enhance trust in U.S. leadership. I was initially hesitant to send this email but then I considered how you have often defended Internet rights, and hope that my plea speaks to your integrity. If anything, I ask your team to contact me at any time if you would like to know more about the transition from a non-partisan, non-political perspective, and to research information about the transition from a variety of sources.. Unlike some of the misinformation spreading across certain political channels, I can vouch for this plan. As someone working in the field, I work with and personally know many of the people who wrote the text of the transition. I absolutely guarantee that the transition is better for U.S. interests than not doing so. Thank you for your service to the people of Kentucky. Sincerely, Michael J. Oghia Jackson, Breathitt County, Kentucky iGmena communications manager 2016 ISOC IGF returning ambassador Independent #netgov consultant & editor Email: [log in to unmask] Twitter: https://www.twitter.com/mikeoghia LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/mikeoghia On Fri, Sep 9, 2016 at 7:34 AM, Sonigitu Ekpe < [log in to unmask] > wrote: Good opinion. How many shall be willing to do what you are suggesting, when it shall favour many Americans. How do you shot yourself? On 9 Sep 2016 6:24 a.m., "Michael Oghia" < [log in to unmask] > wrote: Thank you for putting this information together and for this important call.. Best, -Michael __________________ Michael J. Oghia iGmena communications manager 2016 ISOC IGF returning ambassador Independent #netgov consultant & editor Belgrade, Serbia Skype: mikeoghia Twitter | LinkedIn On Fri, Sep 9, 2016 at 3:19 AM, Edward Morris < [log in to unmask] > wrote: Hello everybody, My apology for my multiple efforts to get this to you. My spell check and font selector seem to have a mind of their own this morning. My sincere apologies. The message, however, remains the same and is important. Next week is a crucial time in the life of the transition. The administration needs to notify Congress by September 15th of it's intention to proceed. Although a high priority issue for a few Congressmen in the so called House Freedom Caucus, the transition is something that has really flown under the radar for most Senators and Representatives. I'd like to tell everyone in the NCSG that the United States Congress cares about what you think.. It does not. Individual Congresspersons, though, do care what their constituents think - that's where we need your help. American members of the NCSG, both institutions and individuals, it's time to let your elected representatives know what you think of the transition. The best way to do this is to call Washington and tell your Senator, Representative or their staff person what you want them to do regarding the elimination of US government stewardship of the internet through the IANA contract. Please today please call your Senator or Representative, or preferably both, today and tell them that: 1. You, or your organisation, are active members of the ICANN community representing noncommercial users, 2. You support the transition of the internet from the US government to the multi-stakeholder community (if you do), 3. (For Senators) You oppose S3034, the mis-named Protecting Internet Freedom Act, or 4. (For Representatives) You oppose HR 5329, the Securing America's Internet Domains Act of 2016, You can reach your Senator or Representative through the Capitol switchboard at 202-224-3121. If you do not know your representative you can obtain his or her identity here: http://www.house.gov/representatives/find/ Expat Americans should contact the Senator and Representative of the district where you currently cast your remote ballot in elections (or where you last resided, if you do not currently vote in the United States). In addition, please call the Secretary of the Department of Commerce Penny Pritzker at 202-482-2112 and: 1. Identify yourself, your affiliation and that you are an active member of the ICANN community representing noncommercial users and that 2. you support the transition (if you do) and expect the Department of Commerce to proceed as scheduled at the end of this month and not extend the current IANA contract or propose a new one. The time to talk is over: Americans. If you want he transition to occur the time to act is today. Not Monday, today. The way to act is by calling, not writing. The impact is much greater. Thank yu for your consideration. Best, Ed Morris