[CCWG-ACCT] Your public comment re replacement of IANA provider
Dr Eberhard W Lisse
el at lisse.na
Tue Sep 22 06:13:38 UTC 2015
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
More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community
mailing list