[PC-NCSG] Fwd: [NCSG-Discuss] US Government Announcement about transfer IANA functions stewardship

[Rafik Dammak]

Hi Everyone,

I think that PC should follow with this too, while Bill suggested statement
and I supported that in the main list, it will be great PC members to be
involved in drafting. we have few days to make it before singapore and show
our support by clear statement.

Best,

Rafik

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>
Date: 2014-03-16 22:05 GMT+09:00
Subject: Re: [NCSG-Discuss] US Government Announcement about transfer IANA
functions stewardship
To: William Drake <wjdrake at gmail.com>
Cc: "NCSG-DISCUSS at listserv.syr.edu" <NCSG-DISCUSS at listserv.syr.edu>


Hi Bill,

for statement we need people to volunteer to draft that and ask membership
for endorsement in the next 2 or 3 days. I do think that is feasible. can
you draft something ?

It doesn't need to be long but should include the fact that we support such
transition aligned with our long time positions and also stress the
principles that should guide the consultation process.

NCSG will develop its positions and proposals for the transition process ,
the mechanisms for consultation, in fact we are starting now and we have
some members contributions to netmundial that can be used as straw-man.

Best Regards,

Rafik


2014-03-16 21:46 GMT+09:00 William Drake <wjdrake at gmail.com>:

Hi
>
> On Mar 16, 2014, at 1:13 PM, Avri Doria <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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20140316/adcf66db/attachment.html>