BTW, assuming the EWRs centralized registrant database comes into 
existence,  who do we think should administer it?

I see the questions as tied in. I believe that ICANN will ultimately 
want to administer it, or whatever replaces it.  Especially if they 
become the trusted administrator of all things critical.

avri


On 16-Mar-14 12:28, Amr Elsadr wrote:
> Surely agree. None of this make WHOIS and other topics less important,
> and I will, in my own capacity, be following them very closely in
> Singapore and beyond.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Amr
>
> On Mar 16, 2014, at 3:48 PM, Rafik Dammak <[log in to unmask]
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
>
>> Hi Stephanie,
>>
>> no worries, there will be discussion about the issue (a lot of
>> discussion). I am working to update the agenda for NCSG meeting and
>> topics with the board . we have to adapt to the new context.
>>
>> for whois and other ongoing topics like accountability, we need to
>> keep following them, the challenge is how we to handle all these in
>> parallel because we cannot drop them.
>>
>> Best Regards,
>>
>> Rafik
>>
>> 2014-03-16 23:34 GMT+09:00 Stephanie Perrin
>> <[log in to unmask]
>> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>>:
>>
>>     +1 Avri.  Bad things happen in chaos, and there could be a lot of
>>     it as folks take this announcement for more than it is, and all
>>     the aforementioned crazy views get ventilated.  I am busy reading
>>     that law article on accountability that Zittrain referenced in his
>>     piece (thanks to whoever forwarded it) but I am a long long way
>>     from having an intelligent view on how this transition should
>>     occur, and what the what in transition to what means (apologies to
>>     non-english speakers for that one!).
>>     Is there time in Singapore to have a serious discussion/tutorial
>>     on this?  and does focusing on it put anything else at risk with
>>     respect to decision-making at Netmundial?  For instance, I have
>>     given up on thinking that anyone else will be focusing on
>>     decisions on the WHOIS makeover now...and some really un-good
>>     things could happen.
>>     cheers Stephanie
>>     On 2014-03-16, at 8:13 AM, Avri Doria wrote:
>>
>>     > On 16-Mar-14 06:16, William Drake wrote:
>>     >>
>>     >> All the more reason for civil society actors to clear their
>>     throats and
>>     >> bring a little sanity….
>>     >>
>>     >
>>     > But views in so-called civil society are all over the map and
>>     match idea for idea both the crazy and the sane we see elsewhere.
>>      Certainly lots of civil society actors are talking now, but we
>>     have widely divergent view points.
>>     >
>>     > I think that first we have to agree on some sane ideas.  I doubt
>>     we can find many we agree on, but if we find just a few basic
>>     ideas like "No the UN is not going to get IANA", we may be doing
>>     all we can do as a group.
>>     >
>>     > For example there are many proposals for the way forward.  The
>>     most famous being that offered by Brenden and Milton with lots of
>>     other contributions including one I made.  These are all very
>>     different and it will take a bit of work to distill from all of
>>     them the actual path forward.  While it looks like NCSG already
>>     endorsed the Brenden and Milton plan, I don't remember us doing
>>     so, though many here do endorse it. I don't happen to, though I do
>>     credit it for making me think about this seriously - I probably
>>     would not have made a contribution if I had not been so disturbed
>>     by their contribution. So I am grateful to is for showing me a
>>     path we should not follow.
>>     >
>>     > So yeah Civil Society needs to open its mouth, but what are we
>>     going to say?
>>     >
>>     > avri
>>
>>
>