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

[Dr Eberhard W Lisse]

For accountability purposes:

Bruce has replied off list.

I told him I did not want to engage off list.

el
-- 
Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini

> On 21 Sep 2015, at 23:06, Dr Eberhard W Lisse <el at lisse.na> wrote:
> 
> 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