[CCWG-Accountability] Fwd: CCWG-Accountability work team 2: draft 5.1

[Dr Eberhard W Lisse]

Dear Thomas, Mathieu, and other co-chairs, if any,

i.e. through the (co-)chair(s),

can you please ensure that commenters demonstrate that they have the required level of insight into the matters they comment on, by, inter alia, consistent use of the correct terminology down to the level of details?

A Registry is a database, i.e. a "thing", not a person (juristic or natural). The correct (agreed upon by the Framework of Interpretation Working Group, and unanimously approved by the ccNSO)  term in the context of ccTLDs is "ccTLD Manager".

It is the ccTLD Managers who the IANA Function Manager (!) needs to formalize its relationship with, once the alleged foundation on which the USG/NTIA base their claim to the root (the so called Teranode Contract) which is flimsy at best and never formally accepted by most, falls away. As soon as no formal relationship can be claimed any longer, the IANA Function Manager becomes a third party interfering with the ccTLD Manger's (pre-existing) rights. 

Hence my previous post about ccTLD Managers without such a "new" contract to be at least not treated worse than those entering into one. This is where I agree very strongly with Bruce Tonkin that ccNSO developed policy may be be very helpful.

And I do not wish to use this intervention to introduce the concept of property (intangible, intellectual or otherwise) into the debate.

Thank you co-chairs, 

el

Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini

> On Dec 31, 2014, at 02:53, David Johnson <davidr.johnson at verizon.net> wrote:
> 
> No -- no registry would be required to sign such a contact. 
> 
> Sent from my iPad
> 
>> On Dec 30, 2014, at 1:23 PM, Dr Eberhard W Lisse <epilisse at gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>> So,
>> 
>> all ccTLD Managers without a contract must get one.
>> 
>> el
>> 
>> -- 
>> Sent from Dr Lisse's iPhone 5s
>> 
>> 
>>> On Dec 30, 2014, at 04:01, DAVID JOHNSON <davidr.johnson at verizon.net> wrote:
>>> 
>>> The suggestion is a new contract, which would revoke inconsistent terms in current contracts.
>>> 
>>> drj
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>>> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20141231/b7f7957b/attachment.html>