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
>>
>