Hi, As one of the PC in favor of this statement. It makes an important additional point on Functional Separation that most seem comfortable with - except you so far. Beyond that some of us feel that this is a critical issue that should be made quickly. I understand the postion that we should just be go along with ICANN staff on this one because it is the nice thing to do. In that respect I think we need to be careful that ICANN position of coordination of the effort does not meld into the ICANN effort to keep IANA. We achieve that by accepting their 4 principles and adding one of our own. Are you are appealing the PC decision to the body politic? avri On 20-Mar-14 18:00, William Drake wrote: > On Mar 20, 2014, at 5:34 PM, Amr Elsadr <[log in to unmask] > <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote: > >> We have reached closure on the NCSG statement drafted by Milton. That >> IS the NCSG statement right now. > > I’m having trouble with the process being followed. Yesterday I > expressed misgivings about the strategic advisability of saying all this > now in the way it does and lack of real discussion with members. I said > I’ll roll with the majority, especially since I have no vote, but was > hoping someone would at least address the points I was raising and > explain the rationale. But now we’ve reached closure already? > > So could someone remind me, voting in the affirmative of saying this in > this way now were which PC members, exactly? > > Thanks > > Bill > > On Mar 18, 2014, at 6:24 PM, William Drake <[log in to unmask] > <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote: > >> On Mar 17, 2014, at 9:15 PM, Avri Doria <[log in to unmask] >> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote: >> >>> Hi, >>> >>> Do you disagree with the stmt? >> >> As I said on the list I’d have thought it more strategic to hold off >> on pushing the new principle until we get into discussions of how, as >> there is still a lot of discontent about whether in other silos and >> this ups the ante ex ante. And I’d have lost some of the tone that I >> know will be poorly received in some quarters, don’t see the value. >> But whatever, if everyone else thinks it’s good to do it this way, I >> don’t have the bandwidth to debate it, I’m flying today. Anyway I’m >> just a constituency chair and have no vote on the PC. >> >>> It that what you are saying. >> >> I was addressing the procedural more than the substantive. >>> >>> So, at the point that you see something as important, you want to >>> take the decision away from the PC. >> >> This of course is not what I’m saying. I said it’d be nice to include >> the wider membership in the discussion before deciding. > > > >