[PC-NCSG] Joint SO/AC/SG Leaders' Statement on the IANA Globalization Progress?
Marilia Maciel
mariliamaciel
Tue Mar 18 00:21:46 EET 2014
Also agree with Amr's proposal.
Mar?lia
On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 5:58 PM, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org> wrote:
> Great. It would make sense instead of groups having lengthy discussions to
> come to separate conclusions that will need to be renegotiated.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Amr
>
> On Mar 17, 2014, at 9:47 PM, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Amr,
>
> I already suggested collaborative tool like google doc in the discussion
> in leadership list where several are thinking about several amendments, in
> order to be sync. Waiting for response to the proposal .
>
> Rafik
> On Mar 18, 2014 5:42 AM, "Amr Elsadr" <aelsadr at egyptig.org> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I think it might actually be a good idea to move this conversation to the
>> NCSG-list. It would be OK to hold it here if we were simply talking about
>> endorsing the statement or not, but if we are suggesting amendments, that
>> discussion should be with everybody else.
>>
>> Better yet, I would imagine that this calls for a cross-community
>> coordinated effort. Perhaps a Google doc that all the
>> SOs/ACs/Constituencies are able to view, edit and discuss. Why not make
>> that suggestion on the SO/AC leadership list? We could use a Google doc.
>> That might save time and effort if the community is serious about a unified
>> statement. That is assuming others feel the need for a substantive change
>> in the statement as we might.
>>
>> BTW..., the statement was sent to the Council list by Jonathan, and there
>> have been no replies so far. I'm guessing everybody else is having similar
>> discussions elsewhere. It would be more productive if we all did this
>> together.
>>
>> Thoughts?
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>> Amr
>>
>> PS: In any case, we should probably proceed with the NCSG statement
>> regardless of others being prepped. It has already gained significant
>> support on the NCSG list, but it would be great to hear from some other
>> NCSG-PC members, including the NCUC appointed folks.
>>
>> On Mar 17, 2014, at 9:19 PM, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Bill,
>>
>> The proposal was shared with membership and PC, so yes we are consulting
>> broadly.
>>
>> Rafik
>>
>> On Mar 18, 2014 4:48 AM, "William Drake" <wjdrake at gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > On Mar 17, 2014, at 8:02 PM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:
>> >
>> > > I think it is more important to get an NCSG stmt out than to wait for
>> the Leaders to do one.
>> >
>> > The silo leads are consulting with their respective groups on language,
>> which is how it should be, and in response proposing revisions. I'd like
>> to see the same thing happening here, frankly. Nobody reads the PC list,
>> including it seems some of the PC. An issue of this magnitude should not
>> be handled in the same manner as a council motion on procedural arcana etc.
>> We should consult more broadly rather than just going off what and doing
>> what a few people want.
>> >
>> > I don't see the argument for rushing, especially since the vast
>> majority of our members probably have not read and thought through the
>> relevant proposals. It's a moment that be leveraged to try to get broader
>> engagement and buy in, and there's no pressure to be the first silo into
>> the pool.
>> > >
>> > > And i think it is more important to make the extra point thant to
>> accept the lowest common denominator.
>> >
>> > If so, then why not propose language to that effect into the SOAC
>> process in the same way the others are? See if there's support for it.
>> > >
>> > > So if the idea is to wait until the leaders have made up their mind,
>> and thus delay, I say never mind, just send the NCSG stmt.
>> >
>> > Misconstruction of the process.
>> > >
>> > > And if Amr is right, then don't bother signing the Leader's stmt. I
>> did not see the issue.
>> > >
>> > > avri
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > On 17-Mar-14 14:52, William Drake wrote:
>> > >> Hi
>> > >>
>> > >> I think Amr's right about the thinking behind "transition key
>> Internet
>> > >> domain name functions to the global multistakeholder community."
>> > >>
>> > >> Insofar as this statement could be read as at odds with the one being
>> > >> pushed within NCSG, I'm not clear how we could endorse both. In any
>> > >> event, you might want to hold of and see how things evolve rather
>> than
>> > >> rush; the world doesn't need to hear from us before anyone else.
>> > >> Different groups in the SO/AC are proposing amendments and the text
>> is
>> > >> not stable.
>> > >>
>> > >> Bill
>> > >>
>> > >> On Mar 17, 2014, at 6:16 PM, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at EGYPTIG.ORG
>> > >> <mailto:aelsadr at EGYPTIG.ORG>> wrote:
>> > >>
>> > >>> Hi,
>> > >>>
>> > >>> I have a question. The first paragraph stating that:
>> > >>>
>> > >>>> We, the signatories to this statement, welcome the announcement by
>> > >>>> the U.S. Commerce Department's National Telecommunications and
>> > >>>> Information Administration (NTIA) to transition key Internet domain
>> > >>>> name functions to the global multistakeholder community, a
>> > >>>> development that was envisaged since the early days of the Internet
>> > >>>> Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) functions contract.
>> > >>>
>> > >>> Isn't this a little different than saying that we welcome the
>> > >>> announcement, and the opportunity for the global mulistakeholder
>> > >>> community to collectively develop a proposal/plan for the
>> transition,
>> > >>> rather than a transition TO THE global multistakeholder community?
>> > >>>
>> > >>> Just wondering if I'm reading it right or not.
>> > >>>
>> > >>> Thanks.
>> > >>>
>> > >>> Amr
>> > >>>
>> > >>> On Mar 17, 2014, at 5:26 PM, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com
>> > >>> <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>> wrote:
>> > >>>
>> > >>>> Hi Marie-Laure,
>> > >>>>
>> > >>>> Thanks,
>> > >>>> Hope we got endorsement soon, also being synchronized.
>> > >>>>
>> > >>>> Best,
>> > >>>>
>> > >>>> Rafik
>> > >>>>
>> > >>>> On Mar 18, 2014 12:53 AM, "marie-laure Lemineur"
>> > >>>> <mllemineur at gmail.com <mailto:mllemineur at gmail.com>> wrote:
>> > >>>>
>> > >>>> Hi,
>> > >>>>
>> > >>>> We need to discuss this at our excom level. But I think we will
>> > >>>> join, since we already issued a statement, if we want to be
>> > >>>> consistent we should also support this statement.
>> > >>>>
>> > >>>> I will let you know in the course of the day-.
>> > >>>> best,
>> > >>>>
>> > >>>> mll
>> > >>>>
>> > >>>>
>> > >>>> On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 9:43 AM, Rafik Dammak
>> > >>>> <rafik.dammak at gmail.com <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>> wrote:
>> > >>>>
>> > >>>> Hello,
>> > >>>>
>> > >>>> proposal for statement to be signed by SO/AC/SG "leaders" .
>> > >>>> reviewing it, I think that I can sign it and hope to get
>> > >>>> support from you on this matter. we will need the
>> > >>>> cross-community work in the coming months.
>> > >>>>
>> > >>>> Best Regards,
>> > >>>>
>> > >>>> Rafik
>> > >>>>
>> > >>>>
>> > >>>> __
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >> _______________________________________________
>> > >> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> > >> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>> > >> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>> > >>
>> > >
>> > > _______________________________________________
>> > > PC-NCSG mailing list
>> > > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>> > > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>> >
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > PC-NCSG mailing list
>> > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>> > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
>
--
*Mar?lia Maciel*
Pesquisadora Gestora
Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio
Researcher and Coordinator
Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law School
http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts
DiploFoundation associate
www.diplomacy.edu
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20140317/73d14bdb/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the NCSG-PC
mailing list