Hi
On Mar 17, 2014, at 4:42 AM, Avri Doria <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> 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
>
Which is why I suggested a more general statement applauding the NTIA move and saying the process to figure out how to move forward should be inclusive multistakeholder community oriented and we expect to be involved etc. That’s really all that’s needed as an immediate response, and it’s broadly consistent with how others will be playing it. It seems entirely premature to expect everyone here to align behind a specific institutional set up most won’t have had time to consider fully and before the conversation on the potential costs/benefits of different configurations has really begun on a broader basis than a handful of folks on the 1Net list. “I’ll have what he’s having” is an ok decision rule in a cheap restaurant but not with something as important as this, which inter alia will position NCSG viz. the process and other players going forward in ways we’d have to be prepared to defend and live with.
How about doing something simple now we can all readily agree on and save the specific institutional recommendations for the stage when the world is seriously focused on specific institutional recommendations? Easier, and more strategic in terms of timing.
Bill
>
> 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
>>>
>>
***********************************************
William J. Drake
International Fellow & Lecturer
Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ
University of Zurich, Switzerland
Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency,
ICANN, www.ncuc.org
[log in to unmask] (direct), [log in to unmask] (lists),
www.williamdrake.org
***********************************************
|
