OK, so looking at the actual notice in the Federal Register (Volume 83,
Number 108, Tuesday, June 5, 2018), the notice is quite lengthy and covers
a wide ranging set of topics.
The question about unwinding the stewardship transition is a single list item
in a rather large list of items which list is only subsection II of a 4-section series of areas of inquiry:
II. Multistakeholder Approach to Internet Governance
A. Does the multistakeholder approach continue to support an environment for the internet to grow and thrive? If so, why? If not, why not?
B. Are there public policy areas in which the multistakeholder approach works best? If yes, what are those areas and why? Are there areas in which the multistakeholder approach does not work effectively? If there are, what are those areas and why?
C. Are the existing accountability structures within multistakeholder internet governance sufficient? If not, why not? What improvements can be made?
D. Should the IANA Stewardship Transition be unwound? If yes, why and how? If not, why not?
E. What should be NTIA’s priorities within ICANN and the GAC?
F. Are there any other DNS related activities NTIA should pursue? If yes, please describe.
G. Are there barriers to engagement at the IGF? If so, how can we lower these barriers?
H. Are there improvements that can be made to the IGF’s structure,
organization, planning processes, or intercessional work programs? If so, what are they?
I. What, if any, action can NTIA take to help raise awareness about the IGF and foster stakeholder engagement?
J. What role should multilateral organizations play in internet governance?
The ones I find most amusing are G, H, and I, which apparently presume that the IGF is a somehow meaningful construct with credibility or ability to accomplish anything at all.