<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=utf-8"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;" class=""><div><blockquote type="cite" class=""><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><div class=""><span style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; float: none; display: inline !important;" class="">Supposed Berkman says "X is wrong." Suppose they somehow come up with something we all overlooked. What then? Do we ramp up the WG again and fix X? If not, then what is the point of this exercise? Is it a rubber stamp to put in front of Congress? What is the point of that?<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></span><br style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;" class=""></div></blockquote></div><br class=""><div class="">This is important. Imperfect as it may have been, Berkman is in no position to evaluate what has been a multistakeholder, political exercise. I appreciate James’ mail to clarify that this is standard USG exercise, but makes no sense optically.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">When the GAO audit of IANA came out, I remember a phrase in there saying US officials have no clue of the implications of the proposal. Giving it to Berkman and saying as the award does that it is the only credible source yada yada just gives it undue influence that will not be seen lightly in other capitals.</div></body></html>