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

WUKnoben wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de
Thu Apr 16 10:44:00 UTC 2015

Can you please help me with the acronym ISTACC - but don't bother the 
co-chairs to let them answer

Best regards

Wolf-Ulrich Knoben

-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- 
From: Dr Eberhard W Lisse
Sent: Thursday, April 16, 2015 10:03 AM
To: accountability-cross-community at icann.org
Cc: Lisse Eberhard
Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] ISTACC call 2015-04-15

Hash: SHA1

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


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

Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org

Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org

More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list