Milton, I don't like it any more than you do, and for the same reasons.... I think we are on the same page. Now we just need to see what the ICG (as a whole) determines to be the case. Presumably, this will require some reference to the NTIA, since they are the final arbiter of what is acceptable. Greg On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 12:08 PM, Milton L Mueller <mueller@syr.edu> wrote:
GS: I don't think a turnkey approach is a "fantasy"; however, it's certainly more work. I'm all in favor of flexibility and taking a more granular approach to what level of detail is needed for a given aspect of the plan. I'm happy to do less work rather than more. Our job is big no matter where you define the boundaries. Of course, anything we don't do now will need to be done by this or some other body (an "Implementation Team"?) later.
This is why I am somewhat dismissive of the turnkey concept. Turnkey says, we must do ALL the work IN ADVANCE. It does _*not*_ reduce the amount of work. Therefore it does _*not*_ reduce the amount of time taken by developing a transition plan. Indeed, by forcing pre-definition of complex arrangements in advance, it might actually take more time.
Milton L Mueller
Laura J. and L. Douglas Meredith Professor
Syracuse University School of Information Studies
http://faculty.ischool.syr.edu/mueller/
Internet Governance Project
-- *Gregory S. Shatan **ï* *Abelman Frayne & Schwab* *Partner* *| IP | Technology | Media | Internet* *666 Third Avenue | New York, NY 10017-5621* *Direct* 212-885-9253 *| **Main* 212-949-9022 *Fax* 212-949-9190 *|* *Cell *917-816-6428 *gsshatan@lawabel.com <gsshatan@lawabel.com>* *ICANN-related: gregshatanipc@gmail.com <gregshatanipc@gmail.com>* *www.lawabel.com <http://www.lawabel.com/>*