Indeed, very useful and perspicacious, thank you. Just the fact of the existence of a common statement, especially one involving lots of stakeholder *from* ICANN, was indeed carrying weights and implications that I'm guessing many were keen to shoot down, however faint and vague the particulars of that message be. Just so I understand this more: who wanted the common statement most? And who preferred most the absence of a common statement? Nicolas On 27/03/2014 8:42 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > 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]> >>> >>