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:
[log in to unmask]" type="cite">
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