[CCWG-ACCT] Legal question
jordan at internetnz.net.nz
Tue Apr 21 19:35:34 UTC 2015
hi all, Eberhard:
On 22 April 2015 at 07:25, Dr Eberhard W Lisse <el at lisse.na> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> Roelof, Jordan,
> the ccNSO is a supporting organization of ICANN and deals only with
> very specific issues through a Policy Development Process. Nothing
> more, nothing less. AND, these Policies are only binding on ccNSO
> members, during their membership to ccNSO, ie if someone left, no
> ccNSO policy would concern.
Let me ask this then --- if the FOI was to be converted to a global policy
dealing with its subject matter, would that not happen through a ccNSO PDP?
Whatever the process, that PDP or something else, would it not be the
framework that guided ICANN's action for ccTLDs regardless of their
membership of the ccNSO?
That's what I meant by the word. Not a framework that decided how ccTLDs
operate. None of us would welcome that, I don't think!
> It is totally different from a membership organization we are
> discussing here.
We are talking about membership (or designator) powers exercised over ICANN
to keep ICANN accountable to the Internet community, including to us.
Not talking about using a membership concept as a trojan horse to impose
obligations on the ICANN community or its participants....
> I also totally disagree that we are allowed to set a framework for
> ccTLDs. In the ISTACC call we discussed this last week.
> Just for the record, I may have been involved with this even since
> before Chris, and changing landscape doesn't mean anything with
> regards to the rights of a ccTLD Manager. ICANN's powers, if any,
> do not grow on trees.
> greetings, el
> On 2015-04-21 20:05 , Roelof Meijer wrote:
> >> 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
> > Best,
> > Roelof
> > From: Jordan Carter <jordan at internetnz.net.nz
> > <mailto:jordan at internetnz.net.nz>> Date: dinsdag 21 april 2015
> > 20:32 Cc: Accountability Cross Community
> > <accountability-cross-community at icann.org
> > <mailto: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
> > <mailto: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 etc.
> > 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.
> > cheers Jordan
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
04 495 2118 (office) | +64 21 442 649 (mob)
jordan at internetnz.net.nz
*A better world through a better Internet *
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community