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
>