CCWG Comments

[Frank Simons <frank.simons@xxxxxxx>]

Dear CCWG, 


As former staff having witnessed thedecision processes inside ICANN I 
completely agree with all CCWG'srecommendations and urge the Board - and the 
community at largeincluding the ITU - to not reduce community oversight or 
powers inany way.  Any changes should trigger full reviews of CWG and 
otherplans. 


Simply, the current managementhierarchy, including that reaches into IANA, has 
proven to bedirected by ICANN executive goals - not those of the community - 
andway beyond those in the original bylaws. The direction has beentotally 
counter to transparency, responsiveness, and overall Internetstability. If this 
is true now, why would it change for a PTI unlessthere were strong community 
controls on ICANN? 


Mechanisms like community oversight viathe Sole Member model are essential. We 
have the RIRs overseeingICANN numbers management, the IETF overseeing ICANN 
parameter, but wehave ICANN overseeing ICANN names management. 


This cannot work without either fullyseparating PTI from ICANN (e.g., different 
boards and finances) orstrong external controls like numbers and parameters 
have. The latertwo can seek to contract PTI services elsewhere without the 
byzantineprocess for attempting to do so for names. Remember, anyone can create 
(in a day or two) and manage an alternate root for the Internet should ICANN 
make it too difficult without following any of the processes we have created.  
The ITU and many member states do not care and are not bound by any of this.   
The only thing we might have is trust and transparency.  Lets not screw this 
up. 



This is the only opportunity to trulyembrace the multi-stakeholder model 
instead of the window dressingthat "all is well" (when it is not) that we have 
had tothis point.  There will be no incentive for a ICANN, post transition,to 
relinquish any control.  





FS