Although, if the iana functions are merely supposed to be clerical, than 
safeguarding against such a possibility with pluri-stakeholderism may 
carry too steap institutionnal arrangement costs (pluri-stakeholderism 
has costs, after all).

Again, I haven't gave all this in depth thought yet.


Nicolas

On 2014-03-16 11:42 PM, Avri Doria 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.
>
> avri
>
>
> On 16-Mar-14 21:40, Nicolas Adam wrote:
>> Thank you Amr for the link.
>>
>> I've just read the 4 principles and they sound very acceptable to me. It
>> is good work, I think, on the part of the author(s), and I would
>> recommend NCSG endorse the principles.
>>
>> I've only one comment/query I'd like to throw in at this time.
>>
>> With regard Principle #4
>>
>>
>>> (...)
>>>
>>> Second, globalizing IANA as proposed here actually improves the
>>> accountability situation. The DNSA structure would introduce an
>>> important new safeguard into the way the domain name system is
>>> governed. Moving the DNS-related IANA functions out of ICANN and into
>>> the hands of a neutral consortium of registries dramatically limits
>>> ICANN’s ability to “go rogue.”
>>>
>>> (...)
>>
>> Doesn't this give registries the ability to "go rogue", say if policy
>> would alter their market landscape in a way that would threaten the
>> status quo?
>>
>> Just a thought, and I don't mean this as a nail in the clog (or whatever
>> the correct English expression is) for this (I rather think at this
>> moment) elegantly thought out proposal.
>>
>> Nicolas
>>
>>
>> On 2014-03-16 10:07 AM, Amr Elsadr wrote:
>>> I agree too. Personally, I really like the submission by Milton and
>>> Brenden. I wouldn’t mind NCSG endorsing it, or at least developing a
>>> statement based on the four principles outlined in it. If anyone
>>> hasn’t read the submission and is interested to do so, check it out
>>> here: Roadmap for globalizing IANA: Four principles and a proposal for
>>> reform
>>> <http://content.netmundial.br/contribution/roadmap-for-globalizing-iana-four-principles-and-a-proposal-for-reform-a-submission-to-the-global-multistakeholder-meeting-on-the-future-of-internet-governance/96>. 
>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks.
>>>
>>> Amr
>>>
>>> On Mar 16, 2014, at 2:18 PM, Avri Doria <[log in to unmask]
>>> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> Sounds like a good plan.
>>>>
>>>> Though we may be able to add that we support functional separation of
>>>> IANA.  We may have some sort of agreement on that point in the NCSG.
>>>> Though I am not sure.
>>>>
>>>> avri
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 16-Mar-14 08:46, William Drake wrote:
>>>>> Hi
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mar 16, 2014, at 1:13 PM, Avri Doria <[log in to unmask]
>>>>> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>>>>> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> While it looks like NCSG already endorsed the Brenden and Milton 
>>>>>> plan,
>>>>>> I don't remember us doing so,
>>>>>
>>>>> Where does it look like this?  I don’t remember it either.
>>>>>
>>>>> In any event, at this stage I don’t think it’s imperative that we all
>>>>> have a shared model of precisely how the institutional 
>>>>> arrangements of
>>>>> the future might be configured.  There will be push back or at 
>>>>> least a
>>>>> unmissable lack of enthusiasm from some actors and probably a 
>>>>> campaign
>>>>> to twist this into a domestic US political issue in advance of
>>>>> elections.  In that context, I’d think it’d be sufficient to at least
>>>>> stand up and say clearly that we support
>>>>> denationalization/globalization, congratulate the USG on looking
>>>>> forward, expect an inclusive multistakeholder process of working 
>>>>> options
>>>>> for going forward, etc.
>>>>>
>>>>> Other civil society networks are already drafting and releasing
>>>>> statements.  It would be a real pity if the civil society actors who
>>>>> actually work within ICANN and have long advocated change fail to do
>>>>> something in parallel.  I don’t care if it goes out at the 
>>>>> constituency
>>>>> or stakeholder group level but we ought to say something.
>>>>>
>>>>> Bill
>>>
>>