US Government Announcement about transfer IANA functions stewardship

[Avri Doria]

Hi,

Sounds like a good plan.

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.

avri


On 16-Mar-14 08:46, William Drake wrote:
> Hi
>
> On Mar 16, 2014, at 1:13 PM, Avri Doria <avri at ACM.ORG
> <mailto:avri at ACM.ORG>> wrote:
>
>> While it looks like NCSG already endorsed the Brenden and Milton plan,
>> I don't remember us doing so,
>
> Where does it look like this?  I don’t remember it either.
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> Bill