Thank you Amr for the link. I've just read the 4 principles and they sound very acceptable to me. It is good work, I think, on the part of the author(s), and I would recommend NCSG endorse the principles. I've only one comment/query I'd like to throw in at this time. With regard Principle #4 > (...) > > Second, globalizing IANA as proposed here actually improves the > accountability situation. The DNSA structure would introduce an > important new safeguard into the way the domain name system is > governed. Moving the DNS-related IANA functions out of ICANN and into > the hands of a neutral consortium of registries dramatically limits > ICANN’s ability to “go rogue.” > > (...) Doesn't this give registries the ability to "go rogue", say if policy would alter their market landscape in a way that would threaten the status quo? Just a thought, and I don't mean this as a nail in the clog (or whatever the correct English expression is) for this (I rather think at this moment) elegantly thought out proposal. Nicolas On 2014-03-16 10:07 AM, Amr Elsadr wrote: > 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 > <http://content.netmundial.br/contribution/roadmap-for-globalizing-iana-four-principles-and-a-proposal-for-reform-a-submission-to-the-global-multistakeholder-meeting-on-the-future-of-internet-governance/96>. > > Thanks. > > Amr > > On Mar 16, 2014, at 2:18 PM, Avri Doria <[log in to unmask] > <mailto:[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]> >>> <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 >