Dear colleagues, On Sun, Oct 02, 2016 at 09:25:28PM +0000, Lise Fuhr wrote:
You will recall that we had an initial attempt at a model and when this failed to get adequate support from the community, the CWG went back to work and produced a revised model.
I hope it is not too late for me to echo the praise for the chairs and the community on the success of the collective effort in the IANA stewardship transition. I said at an ICANN meeting some time ago that even though I believe in it I often feel despair that the community-based model is too fractious; but that every time I am proved wrong. Once again, it happened, and just like every other time my despair turned into jubiliation. We are so much stronger together for our willingless to act together. I think Lise's point above perfectly highlights why this is true. Working together in a community, and trying hard for consensus, means that even carefully-crafted approaches can fail because someone comes along with strong and good objections. We who believe in multiple stakeholders and community consensus take every failure to achieve consensus as evidence that more work is needed, that a better agreement can be reached, and that the truest sense of "common interest" can be found. It's often ugly and painful and frustrating, but it also provides a strength that we, all of us, should depend upon. This network of networks that we together express every day is not a model of ease, or simple ways of working, or even always of comity. But it is a marvel because it eventually delivers the goods: enormous numbers of people can live with the working compromise, knowing their view counts too. The functional spirit of the Internet comes out in these ways of working, and we each must continue to nurture that spirit. I am grateful to count you among my friends and colleagues, and will always be extremely proud of what we did together. Best regards, A -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com