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.

Thanks.

Amr

On Mar 16, 2014, at 2:18 PM, Avri Doria <[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]>> 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