I went over it. Made some additions, fleshed out a few things. 

But we do have a serious disagreement. Whoever wrote the initial draft is laboring under the misconception that any change in IANA function operators must be coordinated across all three operational communities. This is just not true. The plan (and at least 2 of the 3 OCs involved) assumes that each OC has the ability to select a new IANA functions operator independently for its own part of the functions. None of the numbers and protocols people have expressed any concern about the compatibility implications of doing that. It seems to be only names people who are worried about that.



I would object to all of that language but before deleting it wanted to flag this issue on the list for discussion. 



> -----Original Message-----

> From: NCSG-Discuss [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf

> Of Matthew Shears

> Sent: Thursday, September 3, 2015 10:11 AM

> To: [log in to unmask]

> Subject: Re: [NCSG-Discuss] [Consultation] Important NCSG draft comment

> on ICG IANA stewardship proposal

> 

> Thanks Rafik - this is very "drafty" so please consider it a strawman.

> 

> Matthew

> 

> On 9/3/2015 2:47 PM, Rafik Dammak wrote:

> > Hi everyone,

> >

> > Thanks to Matt, we got a NCSG draft comment for the ICG proposal and

> > we should submit this asap (the deadline for submission is 8th Sept).

> > the document is here

> > https://docs.google.com/document/d/14wO_tu-

> liqEqzlMSm_NnGD4_BME7f7Fhg_

> > Z7d1lwYBc/edit please review it and share your comments. the document

> > is in suggestion mode to make the review and input more easier.

> >

> > For reminder, Milton is our representative in the ICG.

> >

> > Best Regards,

> >

> > Rafik

> 

> --

> Matthew Shears

> Global Internet Policy and Human Rights

> Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)

> + 44 (0)771 247 2987