[CCWG-ACCT] [Acct-Legal] Accountability questions to law firms
james at cyberinvasion.net
Thu Apr 23 19:31:19 UTC 2015
Can the Co-Chairs please express my support for Mr Drazek's comments below?
Let us focus on the work at hand and let us try to get the most out of the intensive work sessions for those able to make it.
From: accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Drazek, Keith
Sent: Thursday, April 23, 2015 7:55 PM
To: CCWG Accountability
Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] [Acct-Legal] Accountability questions to law firms
Am I not remembering correctly that the question posed by our colleague was previously determined to be out of scope for this CCWG? I believe I saw an email on 15 April to that effect. I also don't believe I've seen anyone else support the request, and certainly not prioritize it for WS1. Frankly, it appears to be more of a CWG and not a CCWG issue, if it's a WG issue at all.
If my above recollection is accurate, I respectfully suggest the Co-Chairs advise our colleague that continued and repeated interventions on this subject are not constructive and are becoming a distraction from the otherwise good work of the CCWG.
Further, repeated objections to the pace and intensity of our work are not necessary. The objection has been noted more than once. Yes...we have noted our colleague is objecting to the frequency and intensity of work sessions and therefore electing to not participate. He is not apologizing for his inability to attend our work sessions. Noted.
Finally, our colleague's repeated references to alleged conspiracies and consistently negative perspectives concerning our bottom-up, community-based process are, in my view, inconsistent with the collegial and constructive efforts of the CCWG as a whole as exhibited by every other member, participant and observer. Frankly, I feel these suggestions are approaching an insult to our multi-stakeholder process and to the dedication and hard work of the rest of us.
I'm not sure anything can be done about this, but I wanted to express my views through the Co-Chairs...since it is never wrong to do so.
Thanks and regards,
Sent from my iPhone
> On Apr 23, 2015, at 1:54 AM, Dr Eberhard W Lisse <el at lisse.na> wrote:
> Dear Co-Chairs,
> why is every question, no matter how trivial, assigned, but the
> fundamental one(s), namely whether the USG in fact has any claim to
> the root and how this would affect the Transition, if any, and
> (indvidual) ccTLD Managers (in chronological batches), is not?
> It's not only a rhetorical question. Though, I have an idea, which I
> had voiced before the start of the actual work of the CCWG to some
> colleagues, due to past experiences.
> Please have a response ready in time so I can include it into my
> minority viewpoints that you will have to attach the the Request for
> greetings, el
> 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
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community