Happy to help. Since Fadi indicated at NETmundial that ICANN will announce a second process to "replace USG stewardship" this week, it seems to me we should wait a bit to develop a comment. We need to see how ICANN interrelates it with the "IANA transition" process. --------------------------------------- Brenden Kuerbis Internet Governance Project http://internetgovernance.org On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 1:42 AM, Niels ten Oever < [log in to unmask]> wrote: > Hi Rafik & Brenden, > > Do we have a drafting team for this? > > Cheers, > > Niels > > On 04/21/2014 08:08 PM, Rafik Dammak wrote: > > Hi Brenden, > > > > Thanks for sharing this, we have as NCSG to respond to the comment > > regarding the draft proposal from ICANN too (the scoping document is > > part of it). > > > > Best Regards, > > > > Rafik > > > > > > 2014-04-18 1:20 GMT+09:00 Brenden Kuerbis > > <[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask] > >>: > > > > In case you missed it, or simply haven't had time to keep up with > > transition of the IANA functions debate, we have a new article on > > how ICANN has attempted to preempt discussion of options by issuing > > a narrow Scoping Document: > > > > > http://www.internetgovernance.org/2014/04/16/icann-anything-that-doesnt-give-iana-to-me-is-out-of-scope/ > > > > The IGP thinks this is wrong. Yesterday, the European Commission > > agreed with that, saying "there should be no artificial limitation > > in the scope of the discussion." > > > > Toward the end of the article, we provide a link for a redlined > > version of the document, which revises the scope according to the > > NTIA's announcement: > > > > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1nYQwmfTB52fLwT88RpAyGd3kD69rBLXbnG5zi5IT9yw/edit > > > > We invite your comments or suggestions. > > > > Thanks! > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------- > > Brenden Kuerbis > > Internet Governance Project > > http://internetgovernance.org > > > > > > >