[governance] ISOC-NY joins coalition of groups supporting the completion of the IANA Transition - hearing is Weds

[John Curran]

On Sep 19, 2016, at 5:28 PM, Mueller, Milton L <milton at gatech.edu> wrote:
> 
> John, we are in violent agreement about most of the important issues.
>  
> But aside from the empirical validity of the analysis below, I am still not sure what is accomplished by telling us on this list that we should have finished the transition plan 16 months ago.

I believe that the administration is doing everything possible to make the transition
happen, but it simply may not be possible due to the politically charged period which
precedes a Presidential election.  This is important to remember if the transition does 
not continue, including remembering that we were all warned about risk of delay when 
the timeline was laid out. 

> As far as I am concerned, it should have happened 10 years ago. We all know what issues held the process up (separation of IANA from ICANN and membership - for which the ICANN board and staff are responsible; and role of governments, for which GAC and ALAC are responsible). Had we abolished the GAC as I have advocated for nearly a decade, Cruz et al would not have a leg to stand on in these debates. Without GAC it would be impossible to paint a plausible picture that we are giving the internet away to China, Russia et al. But I don’t think it’s relevant to point that out now.

Certainly that change re GAC would alter the dynamics of the argument somewhat, 
although its not just the GAC aspect but also other treaty organizations being mentioned
in some of the coverage.  I also believe that separation of the names community from 
ICANN (as you proposed) – thus making ICANN a vendor to the names community, 
would  have also simplified things and make the accountability work much more 
straightforward. 

If this all were being done in 2015, there would be options (e.g. veto) which would 
be quite severe but would not result in direct impact to the Presidential election.
As it is, we’ve providing an unusually complicated proposal much later than was 
originally intended, and this is important for folks to keep in mind if the transition 
ends up being delayed due to our present continuing resolution antics. 

/John

p.s. my views alone,

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20160919/589d0fb6/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t