[PC-NCSG] Joint SO/AC/SG Leaders' Statement on the IANA Globalization Progress?
Rafik Dammak
rafik.dammak
Tue Mar 18 04:09:03 EET 2014
hi Marie-Laure,
the cross-community statement is still under discussion and we don't have a
consolidated version yet. we are not necessarily in hurry for that. I am
also not sure how we can handle that during SIngapore meeting.
for public session, it is format may raise some questions since only
"impacted parties" will be in the stage if I understood correctly.
Best,
Rafik
2014-03-18 11:00 GMT+09:00 marie-laure Lemineur <mllemineur at gmail.com>:
> Hi,
>
> I also agree that having a more in-depth discussion could be useful but
> let?s be realistic, this is bad moment for some of us (PC members) who are
> flying either tomorrow or the day after to Singapore. Other NCSG members
> are free, of course, to feed in the discussion, but due to this traveling
> situation, I would suggest that what has not been done/concluded/wrapped up
> so far, has to be done during the Singapore meeting. Maybe even after we
> attend the session after the inauguration, so that we get even more inputs
> from ICANN. My two cents.
>
> best,
> marie-laure
>
>
> On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 2:49 PM, 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
>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20140318/24421e96/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the NCSG-PC
mailing list