[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