[CCWG-ACCT] [Acct-Legal] Accountability questions to law firms
Dr Eberhard W Lisse
el at lisse.na
Thu Apr 23 23:24:47 UTC 2015
I apologize for emailing the participant representing the interests of the IPC directly.
Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini
> On Apr 24, 2015, at 00:22, Dr Eberhard W Lisse <el at lisse.na> wrote:
> Dear Co-Chairs,
> let me quote from the transcript of the Legal SubTeam session in question the participant representing the Interests of the IP who was chairing in an acting capacity:
> "In addition another email came up today asking a question which the sender wished to have the lawyers look into that was an email from Dr. (Eberhard Elisa).
> And his topic was what gives the US government the right to control the root anyway? He also indicated that he had perceived a past promise to for the lawyers to review or answer this question.
> I have not done an exhaustive review of the record but don’t recall any such promise being made. I also don’t see the direct linkage between that and Workstream 1 or even between that and accountability per se.
> So I think both - there’s both that particular issue and the others that I circulated a little bit earlier we have to decide how to deal with those and what if anything to assigned to the lawyers."
> The next reference to the issue is by Mr McAulay a little later:
> "And so my hope is that while Dr. (Elisa)’s question is interesting is that we raise questions right now that deal with Workstream 1 for, you know, in order to support the CCWG as best we can between now and April 21."
> I can not see a consensus call, not that an un-chartered SubTeam would be authorized to make the decision in the first place.
> Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini
>> On Apr 23, 2015, at 23:09, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Dear Co-Chairs,
>> Please allow me to correct certain of the misstatements that have recently issued, while the rest of us are trying to work.
>> First, I decided nothing. The decision referred to was made by the Legal Subteam.
>> Second, I was not "pipped to the post" to use the the anachronistic sporting phrase, since I was not racing to do anything. Indeed, I have said far less than I might, so that I am not drawn into this distraction. I agreed with something I read; no more, no less. But it seems "par for the course" to have an intent or basis ascribed to me that I do not have.
>> Third, my view on the request for legal assistance has nothing to do with my affiliation with the GNSO. It was based on my view of the relevance of the request to the work of the CCWG. See above regarding "misascription" of intent or basis.
>> Finally, in my view,the meeting so far today have disproved the characterizations made below. Sadly, anyone who took their hands off the oar (to continue in a sporting vein) and elected not to participate would never know.
>> Best regards,
>> Greg Shatan
>>> On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 5:49 PM, Dr Eberhard W Lisse <el at lisse.na> wrote:
>>> Dear Co-Chairs,
>>> pleas convey my disappointment to the participant representing the interests of the IPC that he was pipped to the post, fortunately only by another participant from the gNSO.
>>> Intense work days, indeed...
>>> Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community