<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 Nicolas,</div><div><br></div><div>I’ve had the same thought since reading the statement, which is why I suggested separating the principles from the proposal. Still…, the proposal involving the DNSA was mentioned in principle #4, so they’re not completely exclusive there. The statement Milton drafted for NCSG endorsement has left that part out, so I suppose the DNSA is something we can discuss at more length down the road. So now, we’re only left with a principle of institutional separation of domain name policy and root zone management. That seems like a more feasible principle to move forward with right now.</div><div><br></div><div>But like I said, in principle, I really like the statement. Having reservations on the DNSA proposal doesn’t stick “a nail in the clog” for me either. There has been a long thread discussing the statement on the 1Net list (check and scroll down a bit - <a href="http://1net-mail.1net.org/pipermail/discuss/2014-March/subject.html#start">http://1net-mail.1net.org/pipermail/discuss/2014-March/subject.html#start</a>), but honestly, I still have questions. :) I would find it interesting to explore this and other possible scenarios further.</div><div><br></div><div>Thanks.</div><div><br></div><div>Amr</div><br><div><div>On Mar 17, 2014, at 2:40 AM, Nicolas Adam <<a href="mailto:nickolas.adam@GMAIL.COM">nickolas.adam@GMAIL.COM</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
Thank you Amr for the link.<br>
<br>
I've just read the 4 principles and they sound very acceptable to
me. It is good work, I think, on the part of the author(s), and I
would recommend NCSG endorse the principles.<br>
<br>
I've only one comment/query I'd like to throw in at this time. <br>
<br>
With regard Principle #4<br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">(...)
<p>Second, globalizing IANA as proposed here actually improves the
accountability situation. The DNSA structure would introduce an
important new safeguard into the way the domain name system is
governed. Moving the DNS-related IANA functions out of ICANN and
into the hands of a neutral consortium of registries
dramatically limits ICANN’s ability to “go rogue.” </p>
(...)</blockquote>
<br>
Doesn't this give registries the ability to "go rogue", say if
policy would alter their market landscape in a way that would
threaten the status quo?<br>
<br>
Just a thought, and I don't mean this as a nail in the clog (or
whatever the correct English expression is) for this (I rather think
at this moment) elegantly thought out proposal.<br>
<br>
Nicolas<br>
<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 2014-03-16 10:07 AM, Amr Elsadr
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:927F3D97-BDB9-4D47-B00A-D6BA7E65074E@egyptig.org" type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=windows-1252">
<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 moz-do-not-send="true" 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 moz-do-not-send="true" 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 moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:avri@ACM.ORG">avri@ACM.ORG</a><br>
<<a moz-do-not-send="true" 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>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div>
</blockquote></div><br></body></html>