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