[CCWG-ACCT] Your public comment re replacement of IANA provider

Dr Eberhard W Lisse el at lisse.na
Mon Sep 21 21:06:38 UTC 2015


Bruce,

would you be willing to share your "understanding" why you are seeking to introduce ICP-1 into 

Garnishee-Appellee's Unopposed Motion for Leave to File a Supplemental Appendix (USCA Case #14-7193 Document #1573369)

while at the same time my understanding is that you agreed with ICP-1 being archived (as not ever having been policy)?

Who are you misleading, the Appeals Court or the ccNSO?

And before you reply I really would appreciate, very much, if you considered the accountability implications of your reply thoroughly. 

As in if you were testifying under oath, like.

greetings, el
-- 
Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini



-- 
Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini
> On 20 Sep 2015, at 08:26, Dr Eberhard W Lisse <epilisse at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Bruce,
> 
> the way I understand it ICANN was uncooperative with the panel and then complied with the outcome of the IRP.
> 
> el
> 
> -- 
> Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini
> 
>> On 20 Sep 2015, at 01:37, Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin at melbourneit.com.au> wrote:
>> 
>> Hello Eberhard,
>> 
>> 
>>>> in the .AFRICA case at least (and I don't remember the older ones well) ICANN was not the model for cooperation, was it now?
>> 
>> Well as I understand it - the two sides put forward their case, and the complainant won the case.
>> 
>> The ICANN Board then complied with the outcome of the IRP.
>> 
>> Regards,
>> Bruce Tonkin



More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list