[CCWG-ACCT] [Acct-Legal] Accountability questions to law firms

Dr Eberhard W Lisse el at lisse.na
Thu Apr 23 21:28:55 UTC 2015

Dear Co-Chairs,

please express my admiration to the gentleman representing Verisign's interests for his comprehensive contribution at this late hour. I am quite impressed at the skills employed, right out of Tea Party negotiation school.

It just so happens that the economics of veracity are quite liberal. 

It was just the gentleman from the IPC who decided during a Legal SubTeam call that this (addressing the fundamental question on which this all rests, and which, come to think about it, happens to affect Verisign's business model) was not to be done.

As the gentleman representing Verisign, which has just this tiniest bit at stake here, has read the Charter he does in fact know, very well, that (only) operational IANA issues are not for the CCWG Accountability, but for the CWG. Where they of course have not addressed. 

The accountability of the IANA Function Manager (currently ICANN) rests squarely with the CCWG Accountability. The only issue is whether this is an issue that must be in place before the transition (which it obviously is) or whether it can wait until after the transition (which it obviously can not).

I have given up long ago wondering why gNSO representatives do not want this issue addressed. But it is predominantly a ccTLD issue, anyway. 

But I would like to look at being singled out as the lone dissenter. 

I could to point out to the gentleman representing Verisign's interests, that objections to the process have been voiced by other appointed members to the CCWG Accountability, though to a varying degree of intensity, but that would spoil the fun.

Indeed I have not apologized for refusing to attend 6 unnecessary unconstructive logorrhea sessions against which I have objected, do object and will continue to object. 

I for one am not employed by a huge Corporation (to ensure their goals are achieved), I actually have to work for a living. And, I most certainly do not carry risk insurance when I attend  F2F meetings.

That said, I have never suggested any conspiracy. I am just a somewhat experienced ccTLD Manager, and in 24 years uninterrupted service I have seen enough revocations to last me a life time. And we are not addressing this, the IANA Function Manager's accountability, and we are not even questioning whether any of this even has a leg to stand on. 

I appreciate any advice I can get, but as I have written in the first week of this sordid mess, I say what I mean and I mean what I say. And that means I post whatever I want. 

And I would challenge anyone to prove I have ulterior motives.

Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini

> On Apr 23, 2015, at 19:54, Drazek, Keith <kdrazek at verisign.com> wrote:
> Dear Co-Chairs,
> 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,
> Keith
> 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
>> Comments.
>> 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
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list