On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 3:33 AM, William Drake <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Hi
>
> On Mar 17, 2014, at 4:42 AM, Avri Doria <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I have several issues with the IGP and with its principles.  The issue discussed below of putting a single stakeholder type in charge is as much a non starter in my mind as giving it over to uni-stakeholder control by governments
>>
>
> Which is why I suggested a more general statement applauding the NTIA move and saying the process to figure out how to move forward should be inclusive multistakeholder community oriented and we expect to be involved etc. That's really all that's needed as an immediate response, and it's broadly consistent with how others will be playing it.  It seems entirely premature to expect everyone here to align behind a specific institutional set up most won't have had time to consider fully and before the conversation on the potential costs/benefits of different configurations has really begun on a broader basis than a handful of folks on the 1Net list.  "I'll have what he's having" is an ok decision rule in a cheap restaurant but not with something as important as this, which inter alia will position NCSG viz. the process and other players going forward in ways we'd have to be prepared to defend and live with.
>
> How about doing something simple now we can all readily agree on and save the specific institutional recommendations for the stage when the world is seriously focused on specific institutional recommendations?  Easier, and more strategic in terms of timing.


Good plan Bill!


-- 
Cheers,

McTim
"A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A
route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel