<div dir="ltr">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:  <div>
<br></div><div><a href="http://www.internetgovernance.org/2014/04/16/icann-anything-that-doesnt-give-iana-to-me-is-out-of-scope/">http://www.internetgovernance.org/2014/04/16/icann-anything-that-doesnt-give-iana-to-me-is-out-of-scope/</a><br>
<div><br></div><div>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." </div><div><br></div><div>
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:<br></div><div><br></div><div><a href="https://docs.google.com/document/d/1nYQwmfTB52fLwT88RpAyGd3kD69rBLXbnG5zi5IT9yw/edit">https://docs.google.com/document/d/1nYQwmfTB52fLwT88RpAyGd3kD69rBLXbnG5zi5IT9yw/edit</a></div>
<div><br></div><div>We invite your comments or suggestions.</div><div><br></div><div>Thanks!</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br clear="all"><div>---------------------------------------<br>Brenden Kuerbis<br>Internet Governance Project<br>
<a href="http://internetgovernance.org" target="_blank">http://internetgovernance.org</a></div>
</div></div></div>