Yes - this was the ICANN board telling us they would prefer to have no transition at all than have true membership. That's why we rejected that option, isn't it? We recognized then that a "trial" wasn't a viable path forward. Milton L Mueller Professor, School of Public Policy Georgia Institute of Technology On Sep 12, 2016, at 14:37, Paul Rosenzweig <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote: Seun Back when the proposed Model was the Sole Member model, the Board was sufficiently concerned that it proposed a trial period before the transition was finalized and completed. They wrote: "We believe the Sole Membership Model as proposed has the potential for changes in the balance of powers between stakeholder groups in ICANN's multistakeholder model. At any time, the balance of power and influence among any of the "groups" within ICANN can change based upon the willingness or ability to participate in the Sole Member, changing for example the balance between governments and the private sector and civil society. We believe that if the Sole Membership Model is the only proposed path forward, it may be prudent to delay the transition until the Sole Membership Model is in place and ICANN has demonstrated its experience operating the model and ensuring that the model works in a stable manner." I think much the same set of arguments can be made about the Empowered Community model ... Enact the necessary reforms; operate the system for two years; and then finalize the transition of no significant issues present themselves. Of course, if they do then you have to deal with them ... Paul Paul Rosenzweig [log in to unmask]<mailto:[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 Seun Ojedeji Sent: Monday, September 12, 2016 1:34 PM To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Transition: For US Citizens (apologies for problems with earlier versions) Sent from my LG G4 Kindly excuse brevity and typos On 12 Sep 2016 5:30 p.m., "Paul Rosenzweig" <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote: > ... I support a two-year trial period. Full stop. I've never said anything else and I never will. > SO: If I may ask Paul could you clarify on what you mean by the above; That the transition should proceed in trial mode? How does that work? I know reviews are put in place in the proposals but outcome of those review will be decided upon by the community and not by NTIA. However it seem what you are suggesting is that NTIA still be able to pull the plugs after a trial period. It's an interesting concept that I have no idea how it is practically possible considering what has been proposed by the various communities neither do I understand why we should go that route. Will be good to understand what you are suggesting here. Regards > > > I note as well, that of course you didn't answer the question. The Board has said the accountability will go forward with or without the transition (or, more accurately, two members of the Board made that commitment in a public meeting). I take them at their word. Why don't you? > > > > Paul > > > > Paul Rosenzweig > > [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> > > My PGP Key: http://redbranchconsulting.com/who-we-are/public-pgp-key/ > > > > From: NCSG-Discuss [mailto:[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>] On Behalf Of Mueller, Milton L > Sent: Monday, September 12, 2016 10:07 AM > > To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> > Subject: Re: Transition: For US Citizens (apologies for problems with earlier versions) > > > > > > > > From: Paul Rosenzweig [mailto:[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>] > > Don't you believe the Board when it promises that the accountability changes will happen no matter what the transition? > > > > > > MM: Mostly, Paul, I don't believe you or other opponents of the transition when they say they favor a transition but want it delayed. As you know, I don't believe a period of abeyance is a viable option. If the transition is shot down during this administration and we have to wait for a new one, everything we have agreed to do as part of the transition is up in the air. It could all be completely changed by a new NTIA head giving us new criteria, or a new Congress passing new restrictions or requirements in order to appeal to deluded and uninformed rightwing constituencies. Whatever happens would depend entirely on U.S. domestic politics. > > > > I also know that many aspects of the revised bylaws simply cannot go into effect until the NTIA contract is gone, so disrupting that effectively sends us back to the drawing board. > > > > You know this as well as I do, Paul, please stop being disingenuous about your support for the transition. As far as I can tell, you want the US government to stay in control of the DNS. Full stop. If that's not true, I look forward to seeing Heritage as an organization or you as an individual publicly challenge the dishonest and manipulative statements issued by Senator Cruz and WSJ columnist L. Gordon Crovitz. It seems you want to have it both ways, feign support for the transition but align yourself with irrational politicians who are seizing on this issue to fearmonger, whip up nationalistic fervor and attack the Obama administration for purely partisan purposes. Time to distance yourself from that nonsense, else completely lose credibility in this group. > > > > Dr. Milton L Mueller > > Professor, School of Public Policy > > Georgia Institute of Technology > > Internet Governance Project > > http://internetgovernance.org/