[CCWG-ACCT] Legal question
seun.ojedeji at gmail.com
Tue Apr 21 19:19:57 UTC 2015
+1 as well but if the CCWG requirements can be achieved in other ways, it
will be good to hear it. The designator route i understand does not require
entity incorporation, may be good to further explore that route.
It may also be good to hear specific suggestions on alternatives from those
who think a particular option cannot work
On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 8:05 PM, Roelof Meijer <Roelof.Meijer at sidn.nl>
> >Unless EACH and EVERY ccTLD Manager formally joins such organization
> >such organization will not have any standing. At all.
> I have to disagree. In the situation that the conscious decision of a
> ccTLD manager NOT to be a member is the sole reason for that manager not
> being a member
> From: Jordan Carter <jordan at internetnz.net.nz>
> Date: dinsdag 21 april 2015 20:32
> Cc: Accountability Cross Community <
> accountability-cross-community at icann.org>
> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Legal question
> Hi all:
> On 21 April 2015 at 23:25, Dr Eberhard Lisse <el at lisse.na> wrote:
>> Dear Co-Chairs,
>> could you please explain to the gentleman from the IPC that it is NOT
>> possible for ccTLD Managers, whether they are members of the ccNSO or
>> not to become a "member organization" (as we are discussing here).
>> Unless EACH and EVERY ccTLD Manager formally joins such organization
>> such organization will not have any standing. At all.
> This is clearly not accurate. If this argument had any legs, then the
> same could be said of the ccNSO.
> ccTLD managers participate in ICANN through the ccNSO and would do
> through a community mechanism that involved membership in order to deal
> with ICANN and global policies, such as they are - not to manage the
> bilateral relationships Eberbard mentions below.
> On Chris's broader point, he has been involved with the ccNSO since
> before it was formed and I have not. I do not understand the aversion he
> alleges in respect of memberships. I know things are pretty different in
> 2015 to what they were in 1998.
> I think our job is to set up a clear and coherent framework for ccTLDs
> along with the rest of the community to consider, and our job too is to
> explain clearly what such a model (including any options) would ACTUALLY as
> opposed to on a FUD basis, offer to and require of members/designators or
> classes of members/designators -- including any issues with associations
> If ccTLD managers chose as a group to not participate in a scheme that
> was workable, and thereby prevented meaningful accountability reforms in
> ICANN, then they would be putting the IANA stewardship transition at risk.
> I don't think they'd to that lightly. But I do think that however
> unlikely, the fact this could happen ( due to our non-contracted status, in
> the end we ccs have the choice) does mean that the doctrine of
> organisational and institutional conservatism is very important.
> Which is why I am glad to see Chris's questions assigned to the counsel,
> and why I look forward to their response.
>> ccTLD Managers have a bilateral relationship with ICANN, if at all and
>> this we MUST establish, as per my numerous requests.
>> This is similar to the GAC, I really don't think that it will be even
>> possible, unless by Multilateral Treaty between all states participating.
>> But even if it happened, the very nature of how governments make
>> decisions in international fora (very, very few governments allow other
>> governments to "speak for", or commit it to something, on principle),
>> make this unwieldy and unlikely.
>> greetings, el
>> On 2015-04-21 08:35, Greg Shatan wrote:
>> > Chris,
>> > The simple answer is that the SOACs as currently configured are not
>> > a very good vehicle for many of the enhanced powers we seek. Once you
>> > make them into members and give them legal personhood everything else
>> > becomes much easier.
>> > However, you assumed no change to the SOACs, which made the answers much
>> > harder.
>> > Greg
>> > On Tuesday, April 21, 2015, Chris Disspain <ceo at auda.org.au
>> > <mailto:ceo at auda.org.au>> wrote:
>> > Greg, All,
>> > With respect, I think we are overcomplicating the issue. I simply
>> > want to gain a base line for the discussion about any changes
>> > necessary to achieve what we want. We agreed on jurisdiction that
>> > if we can get acceptable escalations and remedies without changing
>> > jurisdiction then we should leave well alone for now, I think we
>> > should apply the same principle here. I am clear what the lawyers
>> > recommend we do BUT I am not clear about what we can do or what
>> > compromises we need to make if we were to maintain the current
>> > structure. I think that is a key part of our deliberations.
>> > Cheers,
>> > Chris
>> Dr. Eberhard W. Lisse \ / Obstetrician & Gynaecologist (Saar)
>> el at lisse.NA / * | Telephone: +264 81 124 6733 (cell)
>> PO Box 8421 \ /
>> Bachbrecht, Namibia ;____/
>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> Jordan Carter
> Chief Executive
> 04 495 2118 (office) | +64 21 442 649 (mob)
> jordan at internetnz.net.nz
> Skype: jordancarter
> *A better world through a better Internet *
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
*Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng
<http://www.fuoye.edu.ng> Mobile: +2348035233535**alt email:
<http://goog_1872880453>seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng
<seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng>*
The key to understanding is humility - my view !
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community