Hi, I have several issues with the IGP and with its principles. The issue discussed below of putting a single stakeholder type in charge is as much a non starter in my mind as giving it over to uni-stakeholder control by governments. avri On 16-Mar-14 21:40, Nicolas Adam wrote: > 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 >> >