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