[CCWG-ACCT] ISTACC call 2015-04-15

Dr Eberhard W Lisse directors at omadhina.net
Thu Apr 16 08:19:51 UTC 2015

And just for the record, I KNOW it is a transcript, though I am sure
the chair would have corrected if proofreading showed an 'h' missing
from his surname.


On 2015-04-16 09:03, Dr Eberhard W Lisse wrote:
> Dear Co-Chairs,
> I read page 26 as Mr Shatan stating (who is not an appointed member
> of any SO/AC nevermind ccNSO, he's just the hired gund to take
> .SUCKS down) did not wish to deal with it, that he did not recall it
> had even been "promised" to be investigated (though since he can't
> be bothered to spell my name right, in spite of having numerous
> email exchanges with me, so I doubt he even looked), and Mr McAuley
> preferring to deal with other issues first.
> There is no attendance list attached, so I don't even know who
> participated, but since when does a sub-team make substantive
> decisions? Never mind its composition?
> This is THE fundamental question upon which the only topic of
> relevance for ccTLDs rests and as per my below email it most
> certainly is within scope.
> Hence, I reiterate my DEMAND that this topic be referred for legal
> research.
> el
> On 2015-04-16 04:41 , León Felipe Sánchez Ambía wrote:
>> Dear Eberhard,
>> The question on the foundation of the USG to manage the root zone 
>> was put for consideration of the legal Subteam on its call of April
>> 8 (which I didn’t attend).
>> Attached is thePDF of the call’s transcript and on page 26 you will
>> be able to see that the question was considered to be out of scope
>> from our working group as it was considered that it not only isn’t
>> a WS1 matter but also not considered as an accountability related
>> topic.
>> Best regards,
>> León
>>> El 15/04/2015, a las 16:41, Dr Eberhard W Lisse <el at lisse.na>
>>> escribió:
>> Dear Co-Chairs,
>> we had us a very good ISTACC call today and I raised my current
>> two issues there, the breakneck pace and the IANA Function Manager 
>> accountability.
>> For the latter, from our charter (the third sentence, the others 
>> provided for context):
>> This process on Enhancing ICANN Accountability is taking place
>> alongside a parallel and related process on the transition of the
>> stewardship of the IANA functions through the CWG to Develop an
>> IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal on Naming Related Functions
>> (hereinafter CWG-Stewardship).
>> The CWG-Stewardship’s scope is focused on the arrangements required
>> for the continuance of IANA functions in an accountable and widely
>> accepted manner after the expiry of the IANA Functions Contract.
>> Accountability for the administration of the IANA functions (i.e.,
>> implementation and operational accountability) is not within the
>> scope of the CCWG-Accountability as it is being dealt with by the
>> CWG-Stewardship.
>> Nevertheless, the two processes are interrelated and interdependent
>> and should appropriately coordinate their work.
>> Your Co-Chair Mathieu stated that he believes the CCWG can not or 
>> should not look at IANA related Accountability (or words to that 
>> effect, please correct me until we have the transcript) whereas I 
>> believe that the operative word here is the "administration" of
>> the functions, not the functions themselves and in particular the 
>> decision making process of the Board.  Never mind that I can not 
>> recall any debate on this issue in the plenum.
>> I read that as we do not look at the "internal" IANA operations,
>> ie how they do things.  For example, one major issue of contention
>> is or has been response time to requests, which as operational
>> issue should be addressed by the CWG. Or my allegation of IANA
>> staff leaning on incumbent or prospective ccTLD Managers or the
>> Contacts. That would also be operational.
>> But how the IANA Function Manager (ICANN at present) makes the 
>> actual decisions is most certainly within our scope and we need to 
>> address this.
>> And I find that starting at the beginning helps.
>> Hence my repeated request for a look at the (legal) foundation as
>> to how a Californian corporation has been, is and will be empowered
>> to make decisions that affect third parties, such as the ccTLDs,
>> but not necessarily only them.
>> The failure by the co-chairs to take this up or even to respond, 
>> borders on the deliberate.
>> It's a bit difficult to address the Co-Chairs "through the chair", 
>> by the way :-)-O
>> And, finally, it appears Rod Chehade has apologized, but I really 
>> would like to read the transcript of Dave Conrad's presentation he 
>> referred to so eloquently.
>> I will liaise with CWG staff to find it.
>> greetings, el
>>> _______________________________________________ 
>>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list 
>>> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org 
>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

Dr. Eberhard W. Lisse			4-5, St Annes Walk
<Directors at omadhina.net>		Alderney, Guernsey, GY9 3JZ
Omadhina Internet Services Ltd		British Channel Islands

More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list