Indeed, very useful and perspicacious, thank you.

Just the fact of the existence of a common statement, especially one 
involving lots of stakeholder *from* ICANN, was indeed carrying weights 
and implications that I'm guessing many were keen to shoot down, however 
faint and vague the particulars of that message be.

Just so I understand this more: who wanted the common statement most? 
And who preferred most the absence of a common statement?

Nicolas


On 27/03/2014 8:42 PM, Avri Doria wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Quickly, my understandings:
>
> Within the Registry SG there is caution until they understand what is 
> going to happen when there is no USG oversight over ICANN. Some seem 
> concerned about the conditions a rampant GAC might impose. So they are 
> not quick to welcome anything.
>
> Business is not happy, but I don't exactly understand beyond that this 
> is disruptive and they are not so comfortable with disruption.
>
> The ccNSO is very cautious.  They have very tenuous relations with 
> ICANN and have, to some sense been protected by the USG declaration 
> that it won't mess with other countries' sovereign stuff. ICANN has 
> shown in the past that it wants to absorb them and get paid by them. 
> If ICANN is total boss of IANA, what guarantee do they get?
>
> While I don't know if it is part of the common statement issue, I 
> think, the RIRs do their work through the NRO which only represents 
> itself through the ASO in ICANN.  As one told me quite forcefully, 
> they will decide on their on responses to NTIA in their own good time.
>
> The Root Zone Operators, the most independent of all who have their 
> own ways of cooperating with each other, object to be treated as 
> chattel (my word not theirs, but that is what I understood at least 
> one of them to be saying). So while I don't know if they were 
> consulted (e.g RSSAC) about signing, I can't imagine them signing a 
> common statement
>
> I'm sure there are many other dimensions to it.
>
> avri
>
> On 27-Mar-14 21:58, Nicolas Adam wrote:
>> If anyone has time and would like to explain why, that would be great.
>>
>> Who wanted what and who refused?
>>
>> Nicolas
>>
>>
>> On 27/03/2014 3:00 AM, William Drake wrote:
>>> Rafik read the NCSG statement.  There is no joint statement.
>>>
>>> Best
>>>
>>> Bill
>>>
>>> On Mar 27, 2014, at 2:47 PM, Remmy Nweke <[log in to unmask]
>>> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi Rafik
>>>> The joint statement is what you just read? Otherwise can you share it.
>>>> Thanks
>>>> Remmy Nweke
>>>>
>>>> On Sunday, March 23, 2014, Rafik Dammak <[log in to unmask]
>>>> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>     Hi,
>>>>
>>>>     we are currently discussing the SO/AC/SG leaders statement during
>>>>     the NCSG PC committee.
>>>>
>>>>     Best Regards,
>>>>
>>>>     Rafik
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -- 
>>>> Remmy Nweke, Esq
>>>> group executive editor,
>>>> DigitalSENSE Business News
>>>> Published by DigitalSENSE Africa Media Ltd
>>>> Block F1, Shop 133 Moyosore Aboderin Plaza
>>>> Bolade Junction, Oshodi, Lagos-Nigeria
>>>> 234-8023122558, 8051000475
>>>> [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>>>
>>