Hi Brenden, Niels,

it will be great if you can take the lead and draft something to be shared
with NCSG policy committee and the membership to get consensus and send it
in time (next week).
while we will have a second track about the accountability, we should
respond to current public comment :the process, scoping document, steering
group etc described  in the proposal .
can we work on draft this week, starting with some bullet points and
highlighting controversial part can be a good start. we can use an etherpad
so everybody can follow the drafting process and comment.

Best Regards,

Rafik

2014-04-29 7:08 GMT+09:00 Brenden Kuerbis <[log in to unmask]>:

> Happy to help. Since Fadi indicated at NETmundial that ICANN will announce
> a second process to "replace USG stewardship" this week, it seems to me we
> should wait a bit to develop a comment. We need to see how ICANN
> interrelates it with the "IANA transition" process.
>
> ---------------------------------------
> Brenden Kuerbis
> Internet Governance Project
> http://internetgovernance.org
>
>
> On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 1:42 AM, Niels ten Oever <
> [log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>> Hi Rafik & Brenden,
>>
>> Do we have a drafting team for this?
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Niels
>>
>> On 04/21/2014 08:08 PM, Rafik Dammak wrote:
>> > Hi Brenden,
>> >
>> > Thanks for sharing this, we have as NCSG to respond to the comment
>> > regarding the draft proposal from ICANN too (the scoping document is
>> > part of it).
>> >
>> > Best Regards,
>> >
>> > Rafik
>> >
>> >
>> > 2014-04-18 1:20 GMT+09:00 Brenden Kuerbis
>> > <[log in to unmask] <mailto:
>> [log in to unmask]>>:
>> >
>> >     In case you missed it, or simply haven't had time to keep up with
>> >     transition of the IANA functions debate, we have a new article on
>> >     how ICANN has attempted to preempt discussion of options by issuing
>> >     a narrow Scoping Document:
>> >
>> >
>> http://www.internetgovernance.org/2014/04/16/icann-anything-that-doesnt-give-iana-to-me-is-out-of-scope/
>> >
>> >     The IGP thinks this is wrong.  Yesterday, the European Commission
>> >     agreed with that, saying "there should be no artificial limitation
>> >     in the scope of the discussion."
>> >
>> >     Toward the end of the article, we provide a link for a redlined
>> >     version of the document, which revises the scope according to the
>> >     NTIA's announcement:
>> >
>> >
>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1nYQwmfTB52fLwT88RpAyGd3kD69rBLXbnG5zi5IT9yw/edit
>> >
>> >     We invite your comments or suggestions.
>> >
>> >     Thanks!
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >     ---------------------------------------
>> >     Brenden Kuerbis
>> >     Internet Governance Project
>> >     http://internetgovernance.org
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>