<html><head><meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body dir="auto"><div>For the record and to avoid any misunderstanding, this is the point.</div><div><br></div><div>A ccTLD Manager does not require third party input, never mind consensus, nor can indeed any third party, never mind consensus, affect an individual ccTLD (Manager) unless the ccTLD Manager agrees to that. For the avoidance of doubt, NA-NiC does not.</div><div><br></div><div>ccTLD Managers have BILATERAL relationships with the IANA Function Manager and/or ICANN, and these are hardly defined, if at all.</div><div><br></div><div>They may not or may be members of the ccNSO, in which case they are bound by ccNSO Developed Policy, as long as they are members of the ccNSO (only). I am not aware of any such Policy Development Process, past or present.</div><div><br></div><div>And for all that it is worth, neither was I (or many other ccTLD Managers) party to any such "CWG discussions" though I have filed this position in the comments. </div><div><br></div><div>Right or Wrong, I am not in doubt here about the fiduciary responsibility I have to my company.</div><div><br></div><div>greetings, el<br><br>Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini</div><div><br>On Dec 31, 2014, at 09:33, Mathieu Weill <<a href="mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr">mathieu.weill@afnic.fr</a>> wrote:<br><br></div><blockquote type="cite"><div>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252" http-equiv="Content-Type">
Eberhard, all,<br>
<br>
For the record, and to avoid any misunderstanding, Eberhard
statement below is not a consensus view amongst ccTLDs. This appears
quite clearly in the CWG discussions. <br>
<br>
Best<br>
Mathieu<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Le 30/12/2014 19:23, Dr Eberhard W
Lisse a écrit :<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:76558720-C539-40F8-A872-597628D5F29B@lisse.na" type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html;
charset=windows-1252">
<div>So,</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>all ccTLD Managers without a contract must get one.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>el<br>
<br>
-- <span class="Apple-style-span" style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgba(26, 26, 26,
0.296875); -webkit-composition-fill-color: rgba(175, 192, 227,
0.230469); -webkit-composition-frame-color: rgba(77, 128, 180,
0.230469); "></span>
<div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 13pt;
-webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgba(26, 26, 26, 0.294118);
-webkit-composition-fill-color: rgba(175, 192, 227,
0.231373);">Sent from </span><span style="font-size: 13pt;">Dr
Lisse's iPhone 5s</span></div>
<div><br>
</div>
</div>
<div><br>
On Dec 30, 2014, at 04:01, DAVID JOHNSON <<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:davidr.johnson@verizon.net">davidr.johnson@verizon.net</a>>
wrote:<br>
<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div><span>The suggestion is a new contract, which would revoke
inconsistent terms in current contracts.</span><br>
<span></span><br>
<span>drj</span><br></div></blockquote></blockquote></div></blockquote>[...]</body></html>