Joint SO/AC/SG Statement on IANA

[William Drake]

On Mar 20, 2014, at 5:34 PM, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at EGYPTIG.ORG> wrote:

> We have reached closure on the NCSG statement drafted by Milton. That IS the NCSG statement right now.

I’m having trouble with the process being followed.  Yesterday I expressed misgivings about the strategic advisability of saying all this now in the way it does and lack of real discussion with members.  I said I’ll roll with the majority, especially since I have no vote, but was hoping someone would at least address the points I was raising and explain the rationale.  But now we’ve reached closure already?

So could someone remind me, voting in the affirmative of saying this in this way now were which PC members, exactly?

Thanks

Bill

On Mar 18, 2014, at 6:24 PM, William Drake <wjdrake at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Mar 17, 2014, at 9:15 PM, Avri Doria <avri at ACM.ORG> wrote:
> 
>> Hi,
>> 
>> Do you disagree with the stmt?
> 
> As I said on the list I’d have thought it more strategic to hold off on pushing the new principle until we get into discussions of how, as there is still a lot of discontent about whether in other silos and this ups the ante ex ante. And I’d have lost some of the tone that I know will be poorly received in some quarters, don’t see the value. But whatever, if everyone else thinks it’s good to do it this way, I don’t have the bandwidth to debate it, I’m flying today.  Anyway I’m just a constituency chair and have no vote on the PC.
> 
>> It that what you are saying.
> 
> I was addressing the procedural more than the substantive.
>> 
>> So, at the point that you see something as important, you want to take the decision away from the PC.
> 
> This of course is not what I’m saying.  I said it’d be nice to include the wider membership in the discussion before deciding.




-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20140320/ecff1936/attachment.htm>