<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
However, the "No transition" option is an option that is
comparatively less palatable for other stakeholders than for us, one
stakeholder of which being the Board/staff. It cannot be seen to be
the one preventing a transition. So you should lean towards more of
a hard line stance imho. <br>
<br>
For us, there is no danger of a status quo, imho. NTIA's stance on
the matter is good for the long term, and would the process falter
that they would come back for a second try later.<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 16/12/2015 3:48 PM, Mueller, Milton
L wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:DM2PR07MB7036FC46E760552B35336D6A1EF0@DM2PR07MB703.namprd07.prod.outlook.com"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=windows-1252">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered
medium)">
<!--[if !mso]><style>v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
o\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
.shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
</style><![endif]-->
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">My
response would be that there is no reason to assume that the
board comments will be accepted. If they are not accepted,
and we end up with CCWG’s 3<sup>rd</sup> draft, on net I
would vote for it in preference to no transition. The
strengthened IRP and improved mission statement with
explicit limitations are the reasons I would go for it.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">If
the board comments are accepted, and we get no inspection,
an eviscerated mission limitation, and no respect for human
rights, I could be swayed to go against it. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">The
presence of GAC in the Sole Designator mechanism is
disturbing, and NCSG is indicating to the CCWG that it does
not support that.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><a moz-do-not-send="true"
name="_MailEndCompose"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></a></p>
<div style="border:none;border-left:solid blue 1.5pt;padding:0in
0in 0in 4.0pt">
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1
1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">From:</span></b><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">
NCSG-Discuss [<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU">mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU</a>]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>David Post<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Tuesday, December 15, 2015 10:55 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU">NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU</a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: The CCWG Accountability Proposal
-- Should It Be Rejected<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
It does appear to be a particularly bad combination of (a) a
proposal that has itself been considerably watered down, and
(b) a Board that is suggesting that even that is too
<i>strong,</i>and needs to be weakened further.<br>
<br>
David<br>
<br>
<br>
At 08:44 PM 12/14/2015, Paul Rosenzweig wrote:<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt">At the
risk of stirring the pot, I want to ask the community
whether or not the accountability proposal has been so
watered down that the NCSG ought to oppose it outright
and, concurrently, seek agreement from the Commercial
users such that the gNSO was opposed to the transition in
its current form. If I were to tally the reasons to
oppose the current draft they would include:<br>
<br>
· Enhanced GAC role through the 2/3 vote rule and
there membership in the Empowered Community<br>
· Incomplete rights of inspection<br>
· Continued board opposition to human rights and
mission statement as drafted<br>
· Process fouls in any number of ways, most
recently in the overly short 21-day comment period on what
the Co-Chairs say is the “final report”<br>
· Enhanced role of ACs in the empowered community
to the detriment of the SOs where policy actually resides
(this is above and beyond the GAC issue already noted)<br>
<br>
I could go on, but frankly, for myself, the proposal seems
to have fallen sufficiently short that I would probably
“vote” no, if votes were being counted. It seems to me
that someone needs to say that out loud ….<br>
<br>
Paul<br>
<br>
Paul Rosenzweig<br>
Red Branch Consulting, PLLC<br>
509 C St. NE<br>
Washington, DC 20002<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:paul.rosenzweigesq@redbranchconsulting.com">paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com</a>
<br>
O: +1 (202) 547-0660<br>
M: +1 (202) 329-9650<br>
VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739<br>
Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/">www.redbranchconsulting.com</a><br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.paulrosenzweigesq.com/">www.paulrosenzweigesq.com</a>
<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=19&Itemid=9">Link
to my PGP Key</a><br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.rsaconference.com/events/us16?utm_source=signature&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=speakers-us2016"><span
style="text-decoration:none"><img
moz-do-not-send="true" id="_x0000_i1025"
src="cid:image001.png@01D136B0.48103220" alt="[]"
border="0" height="87" width="578"></span></a><br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
*******************************<br>
David G Post - Senior Fellow, Open Technology Institute/New
America Foundation<br>
blog (Volokh Conspiracy) <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/people/david-post">
http://www.washingtonpost.com/people/david-post<br>
</a>book (Jefferson's Moose) <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://tinyurl.com/c327w2n%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0">
http://tinyurl.com/c327w2n </a><br>
music <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://tinyurl.com/davidpostmusic%A0">http://tinyurl.com/davidpostmusic
</a>publications etc. <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.davidpost.com%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0/">http://www.davidpost.com
</a><br>
******************************* <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>