<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
My two cents...<br>
<br>
This has always been about governance - the IANA functions piece was
the easy part. And this is what the community wanted. Remember
those heated discussions between Board and community in London and
before? For an organization as unusual as ICANN one cannot expect
governance changes to ensure accountability, transparency and good
governance where there had effectively been none to be written on
the back of a napkin. So this is what it is. Yes, it is a new
org. Yes, its big. Yes its cumbersome in parts. And yes it is
untested in the real world. But how could it be anything else? You
can't spill the board to test if it works...<br>
<br>
So we have to get this right. We wanted an empowered community -
now we have one. Lets make it work.<br>
<br>
Matthew<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><br>
On 5/24/2016 9:56 PM, Kathy Kleiman wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:f886b80c-942d-a69f-9947-6a8e1ce197aa@kathykleiman.com"
type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
<p>Hi All,</p>
<p>I attended this Senate hearing in person. Bret's testimony was
well-delivered and well-received, as was Steve DelBianco's
(Commercial Stakeholder Group), Andrew Sullivan (Chair Internet
Architecture Board) and the others. <br>
</p>
<p>The questions from the Senators were good. They explored the
difference in Bret's recommendation -- to go slower in the
transition, to test more, etc. - with Steve DelBianco's, Andrew
Sullivan's, former Ambassador Gross' call to move the transition
forward as soon as possible.</p>
<p>I have to share with you my two cents. The IANA Transition was
supposed to be a "small change" to a process -- a removal of the
US oversight of a procedural checklist (changes to the Root Zone
File) in which the US was exercising a "light touch." The
transition was premised on -- as a few Senators reminded us
today --- the idea that <i>ICANN had been working well and
smoothly</i> so a relatively small change was appropriate.<br>
</p>
<p>But as Ed notes, there is nothing small about this change. It
is a massive reorganization. The changes in powers, rights and
appeals is dramatic. Can anyone assure that these rather
dramatic changes will work smoothly? My sense from today's
hearing is that there are certainly questions... <br>
</p>
<p>Best, Kathy<br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 5/24/2016 3:23 PM, Edward Morris
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:1d3b712165f1436989e0e26a8cd3ff5a@toast.net"
type="cite"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica,
Sans-Serif; font-size: 12px">
<div>Hi McTim,</div>
<div> </div>
<div style="-webkit-touch-callout: none; -webkit-user-select:
none; -khtml-user-select: none;-moz-user-select:
none;-ms-user-select: none;-o-user-select: none;user-select:
none;"> </div>
<div> </div>
<div>
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_extra">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div> </div>
<div><em>We didn't, it is just tinkering around the
edges</em>.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>I guess we have a different view of 'tinkering.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>The changes have DOUBLED the length of ICANN's
bylaws. They have given the community ultimate
authority over seven essential ICANN functions,
including the budget. They have completely changed
internal ICANN governance, with all SOAC's now
taking on new roles. The GAC and ALAC are no longer
merely advisory and the GNSO no longer largely or
exclusively about domain names. The community will
even have a new legal essence.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>The bill: over $8 million in independent legal
fees. To date.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>That's not tinkering. That's a corporate
reorganisation.</div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div><span
style="font-family:Arial,Helvetica,Sans-Serif;font-size:12px">Our
new corporate model is untried, untested and is
a completely new construction without precedent.
</span></div>
</blockquote>
<div> </div>
<div><em>As was ICANN in the earliest days.</em></div>
<div> </div>
<div>Are you referring to ICANN 1.0, that was such a
rousing disaster that there almost immediately had
to be an ICANN 2.0?</div>
<div>You do recall the rather problematic elections
for Board members?</div>
<div> </div>
<div>The internet is too integral to the world economy
today to take chances like that. If this proposal
does not work the replacement will not be another
ICANN. It's likely to be something far worse. That's
why we need to take the time to do this right.</div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div><span
style="font-family:Arial,Helvetica,Sans-Serif;font-size:12px">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 </span></div>
</blockquote>
<div> </div>
<div><em>In fact is has been delayed for many
years....not "rushed".</em></div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<div>What has been delayed for years McTim? A
corporate reorganisation? Or are you misrepresenting
what I wrote?</div>
<div> </div>
<div>It's easy to say onward with the transition,
without knowing the specifics. It's easy to pretend
we're just going forward with the same old ICANN
prettied up. It's easy to say that but it is not
accurate.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>This is a new ICANN. No one knows if it is going
to work. No one.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>A soft transition is the responsible, reasonable
mature way to proceed. It's also the only way for
the NCSG to ensure that many of our priorities that
have been fobbed off into work stream 2 get the
consideration they deserve.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Then, again, those of us who just wrote the
"Dummies Guide To Restructuring a Multinational
Multi-Stakeholder California Public Benefits
Corporation in 14 months or less" may have gotten
most things right. If it goes forward, I hope we
did. We tried. I'm just not willing to bet the DNS
on our work without first ensuring it nominally
works.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Ed </div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</span> </blockquote>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
Matthew Shears | Director, Global Internet Policy & Human Rights Project
Center for Democracy & Technology | cdt.org
E: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:mshears@cdt.org">mshears@cdt.org</a> | T: +44.771.247.2987
</pre>
</body>
</html>