[CCWG-ACCT] Objection to our present work planning

Roelof Meijer Roelof.Meijer at sidn.nl
Thu Apr 9 12:01:03 UTC 2015

Dear co-chairs, dear all,

I find myself in agreement with Eberhard with regard to the steep increase
in the number of calls for both the CCWG as well as its subgroups like wp1
and acct-legal.

It frustrates me to see that, after a period during which we burned a lot
of time on -let me politely phrase it as „less relevant and/or out of
scope”- subjects and several of us warned against the deadline becoming
unreachable, we have know replaced the deadline that has become
unrealistic with a work planning that is simply absurd.

As a result, we now have roughly a two hour conference call every day of
the week, several days with two calls, and thus more calls in a week at
unholy hours. 
I object to this way of working, as it makes the whole process far less
inclusive. Many of us have both a demanding job as well as a private life,
both of which we cherish. For me it is now simply unavoidable to miss a
significant part of the calls and impossible to deal with all the
necessary working groups’ work in-between them. I know that this is now
the case for quite a number of us.

We are rushing forward to reach a deadline which is nothing more by now
than a dead line, and in our hurry seem to accept that the process loses
inclusiveness, transparency and accountability, leaving us with an outcome
that will be of much lower quality.

I for one, find this unacceptable.

Best regards,
Roelof A. Meijer
SIDN | Meander 501 | 6825 MD | P.O.
T +31 (0)26 352 55 00 | M +31 (0)6 11 395 775 | F +31 (0)26 352 55 05
roelof.meijer at sidn.nl
| www.sidn.nl <http://www.sidn.nl/>

On 08-04-15 14:15, "Dr Eberhard Lisse" <el at lisse.NA> wrote:

>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     ;____/
>ccTLDcommunity mailing list
>ccTLDcommunity at cctld-managers.org
>To unsubscribe please send a blank email to
>ccTLDcommunity-unsubscribe at lists.cctld-managers.org

More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list