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

[Dr Eberhard W Lisse]

For the record and to avoid any misunderstanding, this is the point.

A ccTLD Manager does not require third party input, never mind consensus, nor can indeed any third party, never mind consensus, affect an individual ccTLD (Manager) unless the ccTLD Manager agrees to that. For the avoidance of doubt, NA-NiC does not.

ccTLD Managers have BILATERAL relationships with the IANA Function Manager and/or ICANN, and these are hardly defined, if at all.

They may not or may be members of the ccNSO, in which case they are bound by ccNSO Developed Policy, as long as they are members of the ccNSO (only). I am not aware of any such Policy Development Process, past or present.

And for all that it is worth, neither was I (or many other ccTLD Managers) party to any such "CWG discussions" though I have filed this position in the comments. 

Right or Wrong, I am not in doubt here about the fiduciary responsibility I have to my company.

greetings, el

Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini

> On Dec 31, 2014, at 09:33, Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill at afnic.fr> wrote:
> 
> Eberhard, all,
> 
> For the record, and to avoid any misunderstanding, Eberhard statement below is not a consensus view amongst ccTLDs. This appears quite clearly in the CWG discussions. 
> 
> Best
> Mathieu
> 
> Le 30/12/2014 19:23, Dr Eberhard W Lisse a écrit :
>> 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
[...]
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20141231/d77b62e0/attachment.html>