[log in to unmask]



2014-03-17 10:16 GMT+00:00 Amr Elsadr <[log in to unmask]>:

> Hi Nicolas,
>
> I've had the same thought since reading the statement, which is why I
> suggested separating the principles from the proposal. Still..., the proposal
> involving the DNSA was mentioned in principle #4, so they're not completely
> exclusive there. The statement Milton drafted for NCSG endorsement has left
> that part out, so I suppose the DNSA is something we can discuss at more
> length down the road. So now, we're only left with a principle of
> institutional separation of domain name policy and root zone management.
> That seems like a more feasible principle to move forward with right now.
>
> But like I said, in principle, I really like the statement. Having
> reservations on the DNSA proposal doesn't stick "a nail in the clog" for me
> either. There has been a long thread discussing the statement on the 1Net
> list (check and scroll down a bit -
> http://1net-mail.1net.org/pipermail/discuss/2014-March/subject.html#start),
> but honestly, I still have questions. :) I would find it interesting to
> explore this and other possible scenarios further.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Amr
>
> On Mar 17, 2014, at 2:40 AM, Nicolas Adam <[log in to unmask]> 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]> 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] <[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
>
>
>
>
>


-- 
Olévié (Olivier) A. A. KOUAMI
Membre de ISoc (www.isog.org) & du FOSSFA (www.fossfa.net)
DG Ets GIDA-OKTETS & CEO de INTIC4DEV (http://www.intic4dev.org)
PC Vice Chair for Francophone Africa ICANN-NCSG/NPOC (http://www.npoc.org/)
SG de ESTETIC  (http://www.estetic.tg)
Po Box : 851 - Tél.: (228) 90 98 86 50 / (228) 928 512 41 / (228) 224 999 25
Skype : olevie1 Facebook : @olivier.kouami.3 Twitter : #oleviek Lomé - Togo