[log in to unmask] 2014-03-17 10:16 GMT+00:00 Amr Elsadr <[log in to unmask]>: > Hi Nicolas, > > I've had the same thought since reading the statement, which is why I > suggested separating the principles from the proposal. Still..., the proposal > involving the DNSA was mentioned in principle #4, so they're not completely > exclusive there. The statement Milton drafted for NCSG endorsement has left > that part out, so I suppose the DNSA is something we can discuss at more > length down the road. So now, we're only left with a principle of > institutional separation of domain name policy and root zone management. > That seems like a more feasible principle to move forward with right now. > > But like I said, in principle, I really like the statement. Having > reservations on the DNSA proposal doesn't stick "a nail in the clog" for me > either. There has been a long thread discussing the statement on the 1Net > list (check and scroll down a bit - > http://1net-mail.1net.org/pipermail/discuss/2014-March/subject.html#start), > but honestly, I still have questions. :) I would find it interesting to > explore this and other possible scenarios further. > > Thanks. > > Amr > > On Mar 17, 2014, at 2:40 AM, Nicolas Adam <[log in to unmask]> 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]> 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] <[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 > > > > > -- Olévié (Olivier) A. A. KOUAMI Membre de ISoc (www.isog.org) & du FOSSFA (www.fossfa.net) DG Ets GIDA-OKTETS & CEO de INTIC4DEV (http://www.intic4dev.org) PC Vice Chair for Francophone Africa ICANN-NCSG/NPOC (http://www.npoc.org/) SG de ESTETIC (http://www.estetic.tg) Po Box : 851 - Tél.: (228) 90 98 86 50 / (228) 928 512 41 / (228) 224 999 25 Skype : olevie1 Facebook : @olivier.kouami.3 Twitter : #oleviek Lomé - Togo