<html>
<body>
As much as I appreciate your attempt at comprehending my (or perhaps our
collective) motives, this has nothing to do with it. <br><br>
This is not a value-the-poor-user issue.<br><br>
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.<br><br>
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.<br><br>
Alan<br><br>
At 29/11/2014 04:27 PM, Avri Doria wrote:<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite=""><font color="#330033">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.</font></blockquote></body>
</html>