<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>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: <a href="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">Roadmap for globalizing IANA: Four principles and a proposal for reform</a>.</div><div><br></div><div>Thanks.</div><div><br></div><div>Amr</div><br><div><div>On Mar 16, 2014, at 2:18 PM, Avri Doria <<a href="mailto:avri@ACM.ORG">avri@ACM.ORG</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite">Hi,<br><br>Sounds like a good plan.<br><br>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.<br><br>avri<br><br><br>On 16-Mar-14 08:46, William Drake wrote:<br><blockquote type="cite">Hi<br><br>On Mar 16, 2014, at 1:13 PM, Avri Doria <<a href="mailto:avri@ACM.ORG">avri@ACM.ORG</a><br><<a href="mailto:avri@ACM.ORG">mailto:avri@ACM.ORG</a>>> wrote:<br><br><blockquote type="cite">While it looks like NCSG already endorsed the Brenden and Milton plan,<br>I don't remember us doing so,<br></blockquote><br>Where does it look like this? I don’t remember it either.<br><br>In any event, at this stage I don’t think it’s imperative that we all<br>have a shared model of precisely how the institutional arrangements of<br>the future might be configured. There will be push back or at least a<br>unmissable lack of enthusiasm from some actors and probably a campaign<br>to twist this into a domestic US political issue in advance of<br>elections. In that context, I’d think it’d be sufficient to at least<br>stand up and say clearly that we support<br>denationalization/globalization, congratulate the USG on looking<br>forward, expect an inclusive multistakeholder process of working options<br>for going forward, etc.<br><br>Other civil society networks are already drafting and releasing<br>statements. It would be a real pity if the civil society actors who<br>actually work within ICANN and have long advocated change fail to do<br>something in parallel. I don’t care if it goes out at the constituency<br>or stakeholder group level but we ought to say something.<br><br>Bill<br></blockquote></blockquote></div><br></body></html>