On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 2:17 PM, McTim <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
HI BK,

Is a purely intergov soultion then in scope for IGP?


Clearly not, based on the paper we wrote and released last month: http://www.internetgovernance.org/pdf/ICANNreformglobalizingIANAfinal.pdf 

 
 for the EC?


Good question. They made no mention of any particular organizational type in the statement. But they are clear that,   

"there should be no artificial limitation in the scope of the discussion. For example, a consideration of various organisational options, as well as of the opportunity and the most appropriate ways to separate policy, operational and oversight activities should not be "off-limits", if we want the debate on the future of IANA to be seen as truly legitimate at the global level."


 
just curious



On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 11:20 AM, Brenden Kuerbis
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> 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



--
Cheers,

McTim
"A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A
route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel