I fully support the comments of Mr Arasteh. I also remain concerned about the legitimacy of the process. We carried out a U-turn away from the membership model after many months of work. This was as recently as just over a month ago. So essentially what we have in the Draft Proposal is an entirely new concept for the redesign and reimplementation of ICANN. And it is most substantial. Let us pass over the perception that many of us had in Dublin that the inexplicable change in the views of the authors and certain participants was the result of a secret agreement . . . and take the current proposal on its face. Those people and organisations that are significantly affected by this proposal need proper time to consider the proposal seriously and comprehensively. And public authorities (government bodies) even longer. If proper account is not taken of the concerns of Mr Arasteh, Mr Deerhake and others, the consensus view will have to be that this proposal is half-baked (in both senses of that expression). What I personally find frustrating is that this is all so unnecessary. If we had spent less time trying to chivvy the process along, we might be further along, and in more agreement! Nigel PS: I'm somewhat concerned about the repeated suggestions that one reason for the CCWG's unseemly haste is that it all to be done and dusted while there is a Democratic administration still in power in the United Sates -- this has been put to me by several respected colleagues. I know of no more sure way to ensure a negative view of ICANN by a hypothetical future incoming administration of a different political stance than such an apparently partisan approach, aimed at presenting a hypothetical non-Democrat led government with a fait accompli. I must reiterate my view that ICANN has to be above party politics in all countries. We expect it to be around through many years of different administrations, and we have to get along. On 12/06/2015 05:21 PM, Kavouss Arasteh wrote:
Dear Co- Chair In the light of many disagreement and serious objections so far expressed, taking into account my yesterday,s message, you are urged to review your position in positively respond to the valid arguments submitted by many CCWG colleagues.