I agree. The course we took was optimal.

Nicolas

On 28/03/2014 2:48 PM, Avri Doria wrote:
> Hi,
>
> As one of those who argued for signing the statement, I am still glad 
> we did.
>
> As you remember, I am sure, isolation was not my argument, but rather 
> I wanted us to be able to help the effort along.  And in any case what 
> we did was offer - with your excellent guidance - a short sweet 
> statement that was consistent with the individual statement we were 
> making.  I.e. we tried to become leaders in the effort.  I still think 
> it would have been good to have found a common statement.
>
> avri
>
> On 28-Mar-14 22:39, Milton L Mueller wrote:
>> And to think that we were told if we did not sign on to the 
>> staff-prepared joint statement we would be "politically isolated."
>> Looks like anyone who did sign the joint statement was isolated. ;-)
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: NCSG-Discuss [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf 
>> Of Avri Doria
>> Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2014 8:42 PM
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: Re: [NCSG-Discuss] LATEST VERSION : Draft Joint SO/AC/SG 
>> Leaders' Statement on IANA Globalization
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Quickly, my understandings:
>>
>> Within the Registry SG there is caution until they understand what is 
>> going to happen when there is no USG oversight over ICANN. Some seem 
>> concerned about the conditions a rampant GAC might impose.  So they 
>> are not quick to welcome anything.
>>
>> Business is not happy, but I don't exactly understand beyond that 
>> this is disruptive and they are not so comfortable with disruption.
>>
>> The ccNSO is very cautious.  They have very tenuous relations with 
>> ICANN and have, to some sense been protected by the USG declaration 
>> that it won't mess with other countries' sovereign stuff. ICANN has 
>> shown in the past that it wants to absorb them and get paid by them. 
>> If ICANN is total boss of IANA, what guarantee do they get?
>>
>> While I don't know if it is part of the common statement issue, I 
>> think, the RIRs do their work through the NRO which only represents 
>> itself through the ASO in ICANN.  As one told me quite forcefully, 
>> they will decide on their on responses to NTIA in their own good time.
>>
>> The Root Zone Operators, the most independent of all who have their 
>> own ways of cooperating with each other, object to be treated as 
>> chattel (my word not theirs, but that is what I understood at least 
>> one of them to be saying). So while I don't know if they were 
>> consulted (e.g RSSAC) about signing, I can't imagine them signing a 
>> common statement
>>
>> I'm sure there are many other dimensions to it.
>>
>> avri
>>
>> On 27-Mar-14 21:58, Nicolas Adam wrote:
>>> If anyone has time and would like to explain why, that would be great.
>>>
>>> Who wanted what and who refused?
>>>
>>> Nicolas
>>>
>>>
>>> On 27/03/2014 3:00 AM, William Drake wrote:
>>>> Rafik read the NCSG statement.  There is no joint statement.
>>>>
>>>> Best
>>>>
>>>> Bill
>>>>
>>>> On Mar 27, 2014, at 2:47 PM, Remmy Nweke <[log in to unmask]
>>>> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi Rafik
>>>>> The joint statement is what you just read? Otherwise can you share 
>>>>> it.
>>>>> Thanks
>>>>> Remmy Nweke
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sunday, March 23, 2014, Rafik Dammak <[log in to unmask]
>>>>> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>      Hi,
>>>>>
>>>>>      we are currently discussing the SO/AC/SG leaders statement 
>>>>> during
>>>>>      the NCSG PC committee.
>>>>>
>>>>>      Best Regards,
>>>>>
>>>>>      Rafik
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> -- 
>>>>> Remmy Nweke, Esq
>>>>> group executive editor,
>>>>> DigitalSENSE Business News
>>>>> Published by DigitalSENSE Africa Media Ltd Block F1, Shop 133
>>>>> Moyosore Aboderin Plaza Bolade Junction, Oshodi, Lagos-Nigeria
>>>>> 234-8023122558, 8051000475 [log in to unmask]
>>>>> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>