As much as I appreciate your attempt at comprehending my (or perhaps our collective) motives, this has nothing to do with it. This is not a value-the-poor-user issue. I believe that we have invened an extremely cumbersome and possibly impossible-to-execute-well process that will have little impact but a high cost if the contract stays with ICANN, and if it is to move, there will be a high risk of either capture or the lessening of multistakeholder principles. If I am wrong and we can pull this off in a transparent, practical and low-cost manner, dandy. But I have yet to hear ANY answers to the real concerns I have expressed. Alan At 29/11/2014 04:27 PM, Avri Doria wrote:
I also understand that there may be a concern in At-Large community that nothing could ever be as open and inclusive as ICANN is now, especially with regard to user concerns. I beleive the solution for that is to make sure the process we transition to complies with multistakeholder principles, i.e. bottom-up, open and inclusive &c., and not to just accept that ICANN will continue becoming ever more complaint with multistakeholder principles. In fact I fear that without the periodic RFP for the IANA contract, ICANN's commitment to the multistakeholder principles may weaken in the face of other pressures.