[CCWG-ACCT] Updated CCWG-ACCT Calendar of calls

Dr Eberhard Lisse el at lisse.NA
Wed Apr 8 12:15:47 UTC 2015

Thank you very much.

so next week 3 calls (Tuesday, Thursday, Friday, the latter of which
I could not make even if I wanted to (see below))?

The following week another three (Monday, and 2 on Tuesday)?

More than one call per week is already difficult enough to absorb,
but three?  And then two on one day?  When we are already spending
too much time on process and very little on substance?

This is not conducive to thoughtful deliberation and as I have said
numerous times I am opposed to rushing things through just because
of a perceived deadline, which in our case does not even exist in

	I object to this.

And while we are at it, I have asked NUMEROUS times to have the
legal foundation of the USG's claim to the root and/or the IANA
function researched by our legal advisers.  I was told it would be
done, but it has not from what I can see and my repeated requests in
this regards have been ignored by the Co-Chairs.

I have made several requests/suggestions in how to deal with the
GAO, which the Co-Chairs do not agree with.  Be that as it may, I
reserve the rights to communicate my thoughts to the GAO as they
have explicitly requested/suggested.

I have extremely serious concerns about at least the passage of the
German collaborative white paper (or whatever it is called), which
as far as ccTLDs are concerned is totally our of order and
unacceptable, in as much it suggests that ccTLD/ccNSO policy being
taken over by governments (which as we all know is opposed to the
USG's stated intent.

The GAC Representative of Denmark has proposed in Istanbul during
the ad-hoc Stress Test Breakfast, what I understand to be a total
removal of ccNSO's policy making powers, in favor of governments
deciding.  Using the words "Out with the Old" he stated that the
RFCs must be done away with.  I am not clear whether this is the
position of the Representative, his government or the GAC, but when
read together with the above, this is not acceptable to me.

I have not that many concerns with regards to Delegation of a ccTLD
(after establishment), including a Transfer of an exsiting ccTLD.

But as far as Revocation of an incumbent ccTLD Manager is concerned,
I have stated numerous times, that we need to preserve the existing
rights of incumbent ccTLD Managers.

This is NOT negotiable.

And the best way of doing this is by way of the Framework of
Interpretation Principles.

Mr Chehade has apparently in public (and on the record) accused
senior ccTLD managers of not knowing how the IANA functions work.
As a ccTLD Manager with 24 years uninterrupted service I tend to
agree that I do not know how the IANA function is operated by the
current Function Manager (ICANN), though I do have a really good
idea how it SHOULD be operated.

Therefor I have requested that Mr Chehade explain to us how this
works.  I can not find any feedback on this issue.

Unless these issues are addressed to my satisfaction (and I am not
saying that they must be resolved necessarily to my satisfaction) I
shall, as a ccNSO appointed member, be formally objecting to any
output of the CCWG-Accountability.

I am circulating this to the usual ccTLD lists as well.

greetings, el

On 2015-04-08 12:10, Brenda Brewer wrote:
> Hi Eberhard,
> Please see attachment in pdf format.
> Best,
> Brenda

Dr. Eberhard W. Lisse  \        / Obstetrician & Gynaecologist (Saar)
el at lisse.NA            / *     |   Telephone: +264 81 124 6733 (cell)
PO Box 8421             \     /
Bachbrecht, Namibia     ;____/

More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list