Again, there was no joint statement. The simple idea of a collective welcoming of NTIA’s decision and ICANN’s role in facilitating the process couldn’t get through the gauntlet of private agendas and ICANNauts' typical insistence on their first preferences or nothing.  So despite Larry Stickling’s plea for such a community expression of support that could be referred to in the two US House of Reps hearings next week and viz. the crazies campaign that’s rapidly taking shape (complete with sign on petitions to keep IANA out of the hands of Putin and Kim Jong-un, who now apparently work at ICANN), all he came away with is a bunch of personal pats on the back from the GAC.  Which is not exactly the best ammo when battling the Tea Party types, but whatever.  Luckily, there’s a wider world out beyond ICANNlandia, so there’ve been joint statements of support from the technical community, industry associations, and civil society networks, as well as individual statements by numerous tech companies, NGOs, etc.  

Still, if I were Joe Barton or one of the other Congressional geniuses behind the DOTCOM Act of 2014, or one of the interrogators in the House hearings, one of the first questions I’d ask Larry and Fadi is “why’s there no expression of support from the ICANN community,” and from there I might seek to drill down on exactly which groups do or don’t support to what extent in order to undermine the narrative that everyone’s behind this and it’s a no-brainer.  From there one could amp up the attention to DC lobbyist types who’s business models would be undermined by taking the US out of the picture, Tea Party wackadoodle stuff about the IANA transfer threatening the 1st Amendment, Putin, etc, etc. and we’re off into Bizarro World with an eye to making it a rallying cry in the elections and dragging it out past Sept. 2015 and into the next Administration.

Bill


On Mar 28, 2014, at 3:39 PM, Milton L Mueller <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> And to think that we were told if we did not sign on to the staff-prepared joint statement we would be "politically isolated." 
> Looks like anyone who did sign the joint statement was isolated. ;-)
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: NCSG-Discuss [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
> Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2014 8:42 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [NCSG-Discuss] LATEST VERSION : Draft Joint SO/AC/SG Leaders' Statement on IANA Globalization
> 
> Hi,
> 
> Quickly, my understandings:
> 
> Within the Registry SG there is caution until they understand what is going to happen when there is no USG oversight over ICANN. Some seem concerned about the conditions a rampant GAC might impose.  So they are not quick to welcome anything.
> 
> Business is not happy, but I don't exactly understand beyond that this is disruptive and they are not so comfortable with disruption.
> 
> The ccNSO is very cautious.  They have very tenuous relations with ICANN and have, to some sense been protected by the USG declaration that it won't mess with other countries' sovereign stuff. ICANN has shown in the past that it wants to absorb them and get paid by them. If ICANN is total boss of IANA, what guarantee do they get?
> 
> While I don't know if it is part of the common statement issue, I think, the RIRs do their work through the NRO which only represents itself through the ASO in ICANN.  As one told me quite forcefully, they will decide on their on responses to NTIA in their own good time.
> 
> The Root Zone Operators, the most independent of all who have their own ways of cooperating with each other, object to be treated as chattel (my word not theirs, but that is what I understood at least one of them to be saying). So while I don't know if they were consulted (e.g RSSAC) about signing, I can't imagine them signing a common statement
> 
> I'm sure there are many other dimensions to it.
> 
> avri
> 
> On 27-Mar-14 21:58, Nicolas Adam wrote:
>> If anyone has time and would like to explain why, that would be great.
>> 
>> Who wanted what and who refused?
>> 
>> Nicolas
>> 
>> 
>> On 27/03/2014 3:00 AM, William Drake wrote:
>>> Rafik read the NCSG statement.  There is no joint statement.
>>> 
>>> Best
>>> 
>>> Bill
>>> 
>>> On Mar 27, 2014, at 2:47 PM, Remmy Nweke <[log in to unmask] 
>>> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Hi Rafik
>>>> The joint statement is what you just read? Otherwise can you share it.
>>>> Thanks
>>>> Remmy Nweke
>>>> 
>>>> On Sunday, March 23, 2014, Rafik Dammak <[log in to unmask] 
>>>> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>    Hi,
>>>> 
>>>>    we are currently discussing the SO/AC/SG leaders statement during
>>>>    the NCSG PC committee.
>>>> 
>>>>    Best Regards,
>>>> 
>>>>    Rafik
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> --
>>>> Remmy Nweke, Esq
>>>> group executive editor,
>>>> DigitalSENSE Business News
>>>> Published by DigitalSENSE Africa Media Ltd Block F1, Shop 133 
>>>> Moyosore Aboderin Plaza Bolade Junction, Oshodi, Lagos-Nigeria 
>>>> 234-8023122558, 8051000475 [log in to unmask] 
>>>> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>>> 
>> 

***********************************************
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
***********************************************