Hi,

As one of those who argued for signing the statement, I am still glad we 
did.

As you remember, I am sure, isolation was not my argument, but rather I 
wanted us to be able to help the effort along.  And in any case what we 
did was offer - with your excellent guidance - a short sweet statement 
that was consistent with the individual statement we were making.  I.e. 
we tried to become leaders in the effort.  I still think it would have 
been good to have found a common statement.

avri

On 28-Mar-14 22:39, Milton L Mueller wrote:
> And to think that we were told if we did not sign on to the staff-prepared joint statement we would be "politically isolated."
> Looks like anyone who did sign the joint statement was isolated. ;-)
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: NCSG-Discuss [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
> Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2014 8:42 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [NCSG-Discuss] LATEST VERSION : Draft Joint SO/AC/SG Leaders' Statement on IANA Globalization
>
> 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]>
>>>
>>
>
>