[CWG-Stewardship] [] A new proposed US bill?

[Allan MacGillivray]

I agree with Avri as well.  We should not do anything until there was a proposal that had been accepted by the community.  My point was that it would be more appropriate for the multistakeholder community, as opposed to ICANN,  to brief Congressional staffers.

From: cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Milton L Mueller
Sent: November-23-14 12:11 PM
To: Avri Doria; cwg-stewardship at icann.org
Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] [] A new proposed US bill?

Agree with Avri. Once we have an agreed approach to the solution we can brief Washington DC people.
Before that, we could actually be exacerbating the perception of some in DC that NTIA's exit leads to uncertainty and risk.

From: cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
Sent: Saturday, November 22, 2014 10:43 PM
To: cwg-stewardship at icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship at icann.org>
Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] [] A new proposed US bill?

Hi,
On 23-Nov-14 00:35, Allan MacGillivray wrote:

Robert - I agree that we have to pay very close attention to what is going on in DC.  We should consider briefing Congressional staffers ourselves to supplement what ICANN may be saying.

Wouldn't this be something to do once we had a solution we could argue was a community wide consensus decision.

As far as I can tell we are not there yet, and perhaps not even close.

avri
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20141123/ee66443f/attachment.html>