Happy to help. Since Fadi indicated at NETmundial that ICANN will announce
a second process to "replace USG stewardship" this week, it seems to me we
should wait a bit to develop a comment. We need to see how ICANN
interrelates it with the "IANA transition" process.

---------------------------------------
Brenden Kuerbis
Internet Governance Project
http://internetgovernance.org


On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 1:42 AM, Niels ten Oever <
[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> Hi Rafik & Brenden,
>
> Do we have a drafting team for this?
>
> Cheers,
>
> Niels
>
> On 04/21/2014 08:08 PM, Rafik Dammak wrote:
> > Hi Brenden,
> >
> > Thanks for sharing this, we have as NCSG to respond to the comment
> > regarding the draft proposal from ICANN too (the scoping document is
> > part of it).
> >
> > Best Regards,
> >
> > Rafik
> >
> >
> > 2014-04-18 1:20 GMT+09:00 Brenden Kuerbis
> > <[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]
> >>:
> >
> >     In case you missed it, or simply haven't had time to keep up with
> >     transition of the IANA functions debate, we have a new article on
> >     how ICANN has attempted to preempt discussion of options by issuing
> >     a narrow Scoping Document:
> >
> >
> http://www.internetgovernance.org/2014/04/16/icann-anything-that-doesnt-give-iana-to-me-is-out-of-scope/
> >
> >     The IGP thinks this is wrong.  Yesterday, the European Commission
> >     agreed with that, saying "there should be no artificial limitation
> >     in the scope of the discussion."
> >
> >     Toward the end of the article, we provide a link for a redlined
> >     version of the document, which revises the scope according to the
> >     NTIA's announcement:
> >
> >
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1nYQwmfTB52fLwT88RpAyGd3kD69rBLXbnG5zi5IT9yw/edit
> >
> >     We invite your comments or suggestions.
> >
> >     Thanks!
> >
> >
> >
> >     ---------------------------------------
> >     Brenden Kuerbis
> >     Internet Governance Project
> >     http://internetgovernance.org
> >
> >
>
>
>