BTW, assuming the EWRs centralized registrant database comes into existence, who do we think should administer it? I see the questions as tied in. I believe that ICANN will ultimately want to administer it, or whatever replaces it. Especially if they become the trusted administrator of all things critical. avri On 16-Mar-14 12:28, Amr Elsadr wrote: > Surely agree. None of this make WHOIS and other topics less important, > and I will, in my own capacity, be following them very closely in > Singapore and beyond. > > Thanks. > > Amr > > On Mar 16, 2014, at 3:48 PM, Rafik Dammak <[log in to unmask] > <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote: > >> Hi Stephanie, >> >> no worries, there will be discussion about the issue (a lot of >> discussion). I am working to update the agenda for NCSG meeting and >> topics with the board . we have to adapt to the new context. >> >> for whois and other ongoing topics like accountability, we need to >> keep following them, the challenge is how we to handle all these in >> parallel because we cannot drop them. >> >> Best Regards, >> >> Rafik >> >> 2014-03-16 23:34 GMT+09:00 Stephanie Perrin >> <[log in to unmask] >> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>>: >> >> +1 Avri. Bad things happen in chaos, and there could be a lot of >> it as folks take this announcement for more than it is, and all >> the aforementioned crazy views get ventilated. I am busy reading >> that law article on accountability that Zittrain referenced in his >> piece (thanks to whoever forwarded it) but I am a long long way >> from having an intelligent view on how this transition should >> occur, and what the what in transition to what means (apologies to >> non-english speakers for that one!). >> Is there time in Singapore to have a serious discussion/tutorial >> on this? and does focusing on it put anything else at risk with >> respect to decision-making at Netmundial? For instance, I have >> given up on thinking that anyone else will be focusing on >> decisions on the WHOIS makeover now...and some really un-good >> things could happen. >> cheers Stephanie >> On 2014-03-16, at 8:13 AM, Avri Doria wrote: >> >> > On 16-Mar-14 06:16, William Drake wrote: >> >> >> >> All the more reason for civil society actors to clear their >> throats and >> >> bring a little sanity…. >> >> >> > >> > But views in so-called civil society are all over the map and >> match idea for idea both the crazy and the sane we see elsewhere. >> Certainly lots of civil society actors are talking now, but we >> have widely divergent view points. >> > >> > I think that first we have to agree on some sane ideas. I doubt >> we can find many we agree on, but if we find just a few basic >> ideas like "No the UN is not going to get IANA", we may be doing >> all we can do as a group. >> > >> > For example there are many proposals for the way forward. The >> most famous being that offered by Brenden and Milton with lots of >> other contributions including one I made. These are all very >> different and it will take a bit of work to distill from all of >> them the actual path forward. While it looks like NCSG already >> endorsed the Brenden and Milton plan, I don't remember us doing >> so, though many here do endorse it. I don't happen to, though I do >> credit it for making me think about this seriously - I probably >> would not have made a contribution if I had not been so disturbed >> by their contribution. So I am grateful to is for showing me a >> path we should not follow. >> > >> > So yeah Civil Society needs to open its mouth, but what are we >> going to say? >> > >> > avri >> >> >