[CCWG-ACCT] [Acct-Legal] Accountability questions to law firms
Dr Eberhard W Lisse
el at lisse.na
Fri Apr 24 07:14:25 UTC 2015
not only does the CCWG not operate under Roberts or Jeffersons rules, but I note that it is acceptable to have ulterior motives but not to talk about them.
In any case the question of discourse is addressed by the Charter and ICANN's Standards of Behaviour.
Never mind that I find the focus on the side show amusing if not unexpected.
What one does to avoid going into the merits...
Sent from Dr Lisse's iPhone 6
> On Apr 24, 2015, at 01:46, Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com> wrote:
> Addressing remarks "through the chair" does not relieve the speaker of the
> obligation to avoid impugning the motives of his or her colleagues. To the
> contrary, Robert's Rules of Order address the question of decorum in debate
> without regard for the modality by which the comment is made:
> "43. Decorum in Debate. In debate a member must confine himself to the
> question before the assembly, and avoid personalities. He cannot reflect
> upon any act of the assembly, unless he intends to conclude his remarks with
> a motion to rescind such action, or else while debating such a motion. In
> referring to another member, he should, as much as possible, avoid using his
> name, rather referring to him as "the member who spoke last," or in some
> other way describing him. The officers of the assembly should always be
> referred to by their official titles. It is not allowable to arraign the
> motives of a member, but the nature or consequences of a measure may be
> condemned in strong terms. It is not the man, but the measure, that is the
> subject of debate."
> Or consider this from Jefferson's Manual of Parliamentary Procedure:
> "No person in speaking, is to mention a member then present by his name; but
> to describe him by his seat in the House, or who spoke last, or on the other
> side of the question, &c. Mem. in Hakew. 3 Smyth's Comw. L. 2. c. 3. nor to
> digress from the matter to fall upon the person, Scob. 31. Hale Parl. 133. 2
> Hats. 166. by speaking reviling, nipping, or unmannerly words against a
> particular member. Smyth's Comw. L. 2. c. 3. The consequences of a measure
> may be reprobated in strong terms; but to arraign the motives of those who
> propose or advocate it, is a personality, and against order. Qui digreditur
> a materia ad personam, Mr. Speaker ought to suppress. Ord. Com. 1604. Apr.
> Food for thought in an increasingly acrimonious discussion.
> Paul Rosenzweig
> paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com
> O: +1 (202) 547-0660
> M: +1 (202) 329-9650
> VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739
> Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066
> Link to my PGP Key
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Edward Morris [mailto:egmorris1 at toast.net]
> Sent: Thursday, April 23, 2015 7:50 PM
> To: Drazek, Keith
> Cc: CCWG Accountability
> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] [Acct-Legal] Accountability questions to law firms
> Amen Keith. Well put.
> Sent from my iPhone
>> On Apr 24, 2015, at 12:12 AM, Drazek, Keith <kdrazek at verisign.com> wrote:
>> Dear Co-Chairs,
>> I would note that every one of us has an interest in the outcome of these
> proceedings, or we wouldn't be participating and spending our precious time
> and resources.
>> Some of us are here for personal interest, some professional, some on
> behalf of our employers or clients. Many of us are participating for a
> combination of reasons.
>> Verisign unquestionably has a strong interest in an accountable ICANN. No
> one who has observed my engagement in this process for the last 12 months
> could dispute that. For that I make no apologies.
>> In the same way, I do not expect our colleague to apologize for
> participating in this process to protect his own personal, property and
> financial interests and to address concerns about a possible future
> revocation of his ccTLD.
>> Neither are "ulterior motives" as our colleague characterized. I am
> employed by a corporation to ensure its goals are achieved. I am also
> personally and professionally invested in the successful outcome of this
> process for the ICANN community. Our colleague is self-employed and is
> seeking to achieve his own goals for his own reasons. One is not more pure
> than the other.
>> No one should be criticized or demonized for pursuing and promoting their
> interests in a collaborative endeavor. That's what the multi-stakeholder
> model is all about.
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>> On Apr 23, 2015, at 5:29 PM, Dr Eberhard W Lisse <el at lisse.na> wrote:
>>> 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
>>>> 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 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
>>>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>>>> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community