Hi,

As one of the PC in favor of this statement.

It makes an important additional point on Functional Separation that 
most seem comfortable with - except you so far.

Beyond that some of us feel that this is a critical issue that should be 
made quickly.  I understand the postion that we should just be go along 
with ICANN staff on this one because it is the nice thing to do.

In that respect I think we need to be careful that ICANN position of 
coordination of the effort does not meld into the ICANN effort to keep 
IANA.  We achieve that by accepting their 4 principles and adding one of 
our own.

Are you are appealing the PC decision to the body politic?

avri


On 20-Mar-14 18:00, William Drake wrote:
> On Mar 20, 2014, at 5:34 PM, Amr Elsadr <[log in to unmask]
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
>
>> We have reached closure on the NCSG statement drafted by Milton. That
>> IS the NCSG statement right now.
>
> I’m having trouble with the process being followed.  Yesterday I
> expressed misgivings about the strategic advisability of saying all this
> now in the way it does and lack of real discussion with members.  I said
> I’ll roll with the majority, especially since I have no vote, but was
> hoping someone would at least address the points I was raising and
> explain the rationale.  But now we’ve reached closure already?
>
> So could someone remind me, voting in the affirmative of saying this in
> this way now were which PC members, exactly?
>
> Thanks
>
> Bill
>
> On Mar 18, 2014, at 6:24 PM, William Drake <[log in to unmask]
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
>
>> On Mar 17, 2014, at 9:15 PM, Avri Doria <[log in to unmask]
>> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Do you disagree with the stmt?
>>
>> As I said on the list I’d have thought it more strategic to hold off
>> on pushing the new principle until we get into discussions of how, as
>> there is still a lot of discontent about whether in other silos and
>> this ups the ante ex ante. And I’d have lost some of the tone that I
>> know will be poorly received in some quarters, don’t see the value.
>> But whatever, if everyone else thinks it’s good to do it this way, I
>> don’t have the bandwidth to debate it, I’m flying today.  Anyway I’m
>> just a constituency chair and have no vote on the PC.
>>
>>> It that what you are saying.
>>
>> I was addressing the procedural more than the substantive.
>>>
>>> So, at the point that you see something as important, you want to
>>> take the decision away from the PC.
>>
>> This of course is not what I’m saying.  I said it’d be nice to include
>> the wider membership in the discussion before deciding.
>
>
>
>