On 16-Mar-14 18:11, Avri Doria wrote:
> BTW, assuming the EWRs centralized registrant database comes into

EWG

> existence,  who do we think should administer it?
>
> I see the questions as tied in. I believe that ICANN will ultimately
> want to administer it, or whatever replaces it.  Especially if they
> become the trusted administrator of all things critical.
>
> avri
>
>
> On 16-Mar-14 12:28, Amr Elsadr wrote:
>> Surely agree. None of this make WHOIS and other topics less important,
>> and I will, in my own capacity, be following them very closely in
>> Singapore and beyond.
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>> Amr
>>
>> On Mar 16, 2014, at 3:48 PM, Rafik Dammak <[log in to unmask]
>> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Stephanie,
>>>
>>> no worries, there will be discussion about the issue (a lot of
>>> discussion). I am working to update the agenda for NCSG meeting and
>>> topics with the board . we have to adapt to the new context.
>>>
>>> for whois and other ongoing topics like accountability, we need to
>>> keep following them, the challenge is how we to handle all these in
>>> parallel because we cannot drop them.
>>>
>>> Best Regards,
>>>
>>> Rafik
>>>
>>> 2014-03-16 23:34 GMT+09:00 Stephanie Perrin
>>> <[log in to unmask]
>>> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>>:
>>>
>>>     +1 Avri.  Bad things happen in chaos, and there could be a lot of
>>>     it as folks take this announcement for more than it is, and all
>>>     the aforementioned crazy views get ventilated.  I am busy reading
>>>     that law article on accountability that Zittrain referenced in his
>>>     piece (thanks to whoever forwarded it) but I am a long long way
>>>     from having an intelligent view on how this transition should
>>>     occur, and what the what in transition to what means (apologies to
>>>     non-english speakers for that one!).
>>>     Is there time in Singapore to have a serious discussion/tutorial
>>>     on this?  and does focusing on it put anything else at risk with
>>>     respect to decision-making at Netmundial?  For instance, I have
>>>     given up on thinking that anyone else will be focusing on
>>>     decisions on the WHOIS makeover now...and some really un-good
>>>     things could happen.
>>>     cheers Stephanie
>>>     On 2014-03-16, at 8:13 AM, Avri Doria wrote:
>>>
>>>     > On 16-Mar-14 06:16, William Drake wrote:
>>>     >>
>>>     >> All the more reason for civil society actors to clear their
>>>     throats and
>>>     >> bring a little sanity….
>>>     >>
>>>     >
>>>     > But views in so-called civil society are all over the map and
>>>     match idea for idea both the crazy and the sane we see elsewhere.
>>>      Certainly lots of civil society actors are talking now, but we
>>>     have widely divergent view points.
>>>     >
>>>     > I think that first we have to agree on some sane ideas.  I doubt
>>>     we can find many we agree on, but if we find just a few basic
>>>     ideas like "No the UN is not going to get IANA", we may be doing
>>>     all we can do as a group.
>>>     >
>>>     > For example there are many proposals for the way forward.  The
>>>     most famous being that offered by Brenden and Milton with lots of
>>>     other contributions including one I made.  These are all very
>>>     different and it will take a bit of work to distill from all of
>>>     them the actual path forward.  While it looks like NCSG already
>>>     endorsed the Brenden and Milton plan, I don't remember us doing
>>>     so, though many here do endorse it. I don't happen to, though I do
>>>     credit it for making me think about this seriously - I probably
>>>     would not have made a contribution if I had not been so disturbed
>>>     by their contribution. So I am grateful to is for showing me a
>>>     path we should not follow.
>>>     >
>>>     > So yeah Civil Society needs to open its mouth, but what are we
>>>     going to say?
>>>     >
>>>     > avri
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>