<html>
<body>
FWIW, I'm with Brett, Ed, and the others on the advisability of delay
side of the line. Even if all of the critical pieces of this new
structure were spelled out in detail in this plan (which they're not -
see, e.g., the IRP), the new structure is immensely complex, and nobody
can say for sure how well or poorly it will function. "Rough
consensus" is terrific, and it's a considerable achievement to have
reached it. But the other hals of the old IETF equation is
critical, too: "Running Code." Having arrived at
consensus is no guarantee that the system will actually work as
planned. Nobody knows if this code will run smoothly or not, and it
seems perfectly sensible to say we should find that out before we adopt
it. Of course, delay has costs - but it has the very significant
advantage that it is not irrevocable.<br><br>
David<br><br>
<br><br>
At 05:41 AM 5/25/2016, Matthew Shears wrote:<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">+ 1 <br><br>
On 5/25/2016 9:42 AM, William Drake wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">Hi <br><br>
I strongly disagree that a delay will not help anyone. Â It will very
much help the governments of China, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Iran, et al to
convince some of the vast number of developing and transitional country
governments that have been on the fence that the whole multistakeholder
enterprise is just window dressing for US hegemony and that they now must
urgently explore every national and multilateral option to strengthen
their ‘cybersovereignty’ and insulation from the dreaded GAFA etc. Â
The transition fails, we will be dealing with massive ripple effects
across multiple issue spaces for years to come. Â There are geopolitical
reasons NCUC members have advocated the US giving up its role since at
least a decade ago in the WSIS meetings. Â The hope was to 'remove the
target' so governments could maybe focus instead on ways to deal with
real issues that impact access to and use of the Internet. Â The
‘delay’ makes the target much much bigger, and if somehow the US
political process manages to make Il Donald the president, the target
will grow by orders of magnitude and fragmentation will become an ever
more relevant concern. I guess I shouldn’t complain since I live in
Geneva and might get to attend lots more bitterly divided UN meetings
etc, so can keep as busy as a Beltway Bandit.<br><br>
Anyway, here’s the link to the letter from Rubio and four other
Republican senators saying that the US should retain control until after
the election.Â
<a href="http://www.rubio.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?a=files.serve&File_id=96B86CF4-58BE-4E5A-A20A-C9D3D9A0A7CE">
http://www.rubio.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?a=files.serve&File_id=96B86CF4-58BE-4E5A-A20A-C9D3D9A0A7CE</a>
 <br><br>
Cheers,<br><br>
Bill<br><br>
<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">On May 25, 2016, at 08:33, James
Gannon
<<a href="mailto:james@cyberinvasion.net">james@cyberinvasion.net</a>
> wrote:<br><br>
I agree delay is not going to help anyone, ‘testing’ the plan will
bring us nowhere as the very powers that people have concerns over and
wish to test will likely not be used in any reasonable testing period. We
will likely not have to spill the board, file community IRPs against
ICANN or take recourse to the California courts, and to insinuate
otherwise is playing to the people who like to hear the media spin reels
around the transition.<br><br>
Our proposal is sound, is based in strong governance and law, and is
ready to be executed. We either believe in the ability of the community
to build design and execute or we don’t. <br><br>
I do.<br><br>
-James<br><br>
<br><br>
<br>
On 25/05/2016, 06:55, "NCSG-Discuss on behalf of Dorothy K.
Gordon"
<<a href="mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS@listserv.syr.edu">
NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU</a> on behalf of
<a href="mailto:director-general@aiti-kace.com.gh">
director-general@AITI-KACE.COM.GH</a>> wrote:<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">There will always be issues that
can be used to avoid the transition. Delay is really not going to help in
this case. Â I believe delay will kill this, and we will look back with
regret if it does not go forward now.<br>
best regards<br>
DG<br><br>
----- Original Message -----<br>
From: "Ron Wickersham"
<<a href="mailto:rjw@itsmyinternet.org">rjw@ITSMYINTERNET.ORG</a>
><br>
To:
<a href="mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS@listserv.syr.edu">
NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU</a><br>
Sent: Wednesday, May 25, 2016 5:11:00 AM<br>
Subject: Re: great opening statement by Brett<br><br>
i'm not convinced that going slow is any kind of attempt to kill the<br>
transistion. Â Â i share the concerns Ed and Kathy have enumerated,
and<br>
am extremely uncomfortable with the important items that were
shuffled<br>
off into workstream 2 just to get these contentious and very
important<br>
issues off the table. Â Â dividing the work up is ok, but get the
whole<br>
work stream parts 1 and parts 2 and if need be parts 3 and 4
resolved<br>
before the actual transition.<br><br>
as both a NCUC and NCSG member as well as a USA citizen, i don't see<br>
how my representatives can approve a half-finished plan where the<br>
stakeholders have not resolved important issues -- the only thing<br>
the stakeholders have addressed is how to divide the work into two<br>
streams and agreed on the first part only.<br><br>
not every one who shares these same concerns is a USA citizen, these<br>
concerns are not US centric at all. Â Â and with the change in leadership
<br>
of ICANN in the middle of the process affects the continuity of the <br>
deliberations and adds additional uncertinty.<br><br>
i'm on the side of proceeding more slowly. Â Â a finished good plan
that<br>
is agreed (really a compromise) between all stakeholders will stand
on<br>
its own merit and will succeed.<br><br>
by overloading with too many separate, sometimes overlapping, groups<br>
makes it impossible for Non-commercial volunteers to participate in<br>
all the important steps. Â Â still we can recognize if the final
plan<br>
is insufficient to address our valid interests, so we have to see
the<br>
end product to adequately judge our position.<br><br>
-ron</blockquote></blockquote><br><br>
*************************************************************<br>
William J. Drake<br>
International Fellow &Â Lecturer<br>
 Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ<br>
 University of Zurich, Switzerland<br>
<a href="mailto:william.drake@uzh.ch">william.drake@uzh.ch</a>Â
(direct), <a href="mailto:wjdrake@gmail.com">wjdrake@gmail.com</a>Â
(lists),<br>
  <a href="http://www.williamdrake.org">www.williamdrake.org</a><br>
<i>The Working Group on Internet Governance - 10th AnniversaryÂ
Reflections</i><br>
New book atÂ
<a href="http://amzn.to/22hWZxC">http://amzn.to/22hWZxC</a><br>
*************************************************************</blockquote>
<br><br>
<br>
<pre>--
Matthew Shears | Director, Global Internet Policy & Human Rights
Project
Center for Democracy & Technology | cdt.org
E: <a href="mailto:mshears@cdt.org">mshears@cdt.org</a> | T:
+44.771.247.2987
</pre><font face="Courier New, Courier"></font></blockquote><br>
*******************************<br>
<font size=2>David G. Post<br>
Volokh Conspiracy Blog
<a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/people/david-post" eudora="autourl">
http://www.washingtonpost.com/people/david-post</a> <br>
Book (ISO Jefferson's Moose)
<a href="http://tinyurl.com/c327w2n%A0%A0%A0" eudora="autourl">
http://tinyurl.com/c327w2n </a> <br>
Music
<a href="https://soundcloud.com/davidpost-1/sets" eudora="autourl">
https://soundcloud.com/davidpost-1/sets<br>
</a>Publications & Misc.
<a href="http://www.ssrn.com/author=537%A0" eudora="autourl">
http://www.ssrn.com/author=537 </a>
<a href="http://www.davidpost.com/" eudora="autourl">
http://www.davidpost.com</a> <br>
</font>******************************* </body>
</html>