<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<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>
</body>
</html>