<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=windows-1252"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;"><div>Hi</div><div><br></div>On Mar 16, 2014, at 1:13 PM, Avri Doria <<a href="mailto:avri@ACM.ORG">avri@ACM.ORG</a>> wrote:
<div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite"><div><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: 18px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; float: none; display: inline !important;">While it looks like NCSG already endorsed the Brenden and Milton plan, I don't remember us doing so,<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></span></div></blockquote></div><br><div>Where does it look like this? I don’t remember it either.</div><div><br></div><div>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. </div><div><br></div><div>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.</div><div><br></div><div>Bill</div></body></html>