<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 14 (filtered medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Webdings;
panose-1:5 3 1 2 1 5 9 6 7 3;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
mso-fareast-language:EN-US;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-compose;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
mso-fareast-language:EN-US;}
@page WordSection1
{size:612.0pt 792.0pt;
margin:3.0cm 2.0cm 3.0cm 2.0cm;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body lang="DA" link="blue" vlink="purple">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">In the email below it is among other things stated that:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">"The GAC Representative of Denmark has proposed in Istanbul during the ad-hoc Stress Test Breakfast, what I understand to be a total removal of ccNSO's policy making powers, in favor of governments deciding. Using the
words "Out with the Old" he stated that the RFCs must be done away with. I am not clear whether this is the position of the Representative, his government or the GAC, but when read together with the above, this is not acceptable to me."<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Let me in short repeat the essence of what I said.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">When there <i>is</i> national legislation giving a public authority the power to redelegate/transfer an ccTLD after a due process, then the IANA function has to follow the instruction from that authority and implement
the redelegation.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">If there is a complaint or challenge concerning the national decision, it must be dealt with within the national appeal/court system - not through an ICANN appeal mechanism or reconsideration mechanism.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">And it is correct that I mentioned that RFC1591 should be deleted or amended to be in line with the reality of today - or as it was stated very much to the point, "Out with the Old"!<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Best,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Finn<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";mso-fareast-language:DA">Kind regards<br>
<br>
<b>Finn Petersen<o:p></o:p></b></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";mso-fareast-language:DA">Director of International ICT Relations</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";mso-fareast-language:DA"><br>
<br>
</span><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:7.5pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:maroon;mso-fareast-language:DA">DANISH BUSINESS AUTHORITY</span></b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:7.5pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:maroon;mso-fareast-language:DA"><br>
</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:7.5pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:black;mso-fareast-language:DA"><br>
Dahlerups Pakhus<br>
Langelinie Allé 17<br>
DK-2100 København Ø<br>
Telephone: +45 3529 1000<br>
Direct: +45 3529 1013<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:7.5pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:black;mso-fareast-language:DA">Mobile: +45 2072 7131<br>
E-mail: FinPet@erst.dk<br>
www.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk<br>
<br>
MINISTRY FOR BUSINESS AND GROWTH<br>
<br>
</span><span style="font-size:13.5pt;font-family:Webdings;color:green;mso-fareast-language:DA">P</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-language:DA">
</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:7.5pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:green;mso-fareast-language:DA">Please consider the environment before printing this email.</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-language:DA">
</span><span lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">-----Oprindelig meddelelse-----<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Fra: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] På vegne af Dr Eberhard Lisse<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Sendt: 8. april 2015 14:16<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Til: accountability-cross-community@icann.org<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Cc: cctldcommunity@cctld-managers.org; directors@omadhina.net; ccnso-members@icann.org; cctldworld@icann.org<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Emne: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Updated CCWG-ACCT Calendar of calls<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Thank you very much.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">so next week 3 calls (Tuesday, Thursday, Friday, the latter of which I could not make even if I wanted to (see below))?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">The following week another three (Monday, and 2 on Tuesday)?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">More than one call per week is already difficult enough to absorb, but three? And then two on one day? When we are already spending too much time on process and very little on substance?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">This is not conducive to thoughtful deliberation and as I have said numerous times I am opposed to rushing things through just because of a perceived deadline, which in our case does not even exist in reality.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"> I object to this.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">And while we are at it, I have asked NUMEROUS times to have the legal foundation of the USG's claim to the root and/or the IANA function researched by our legal advisers. I was told it would be done, but it has not from
what I can see and my repeated requests in this regards have been ignored by the Co-Chairs.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">I have made several requests/suggestions in how to deal with the GAO, which the Co-Chairs do not agree with. Be that as it may, I reserve the rights to communicate my thoughts to the GAO as they have explicitly requested/suggested.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">I have extremely serious concerns about at least the passage of the German collaborative white paper (or whatever it is called), which as far as ccTLDs are concerned is totally our of order and unacceptable, in as much
it suggests that ccTLD/ccNSO policy being taken over by governments (which as we all know is opposed to the USG's stated intent.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">The GAC Representative of Denmark has proposed in Istanbul during the ad-hoc Stress Test Breakfast, what I understand to be a total removal of ccNSO's policy making powers, in favor of governments deciding. Using the
words "Out with the Old" he stated that the RFCs must be done away with. I am not clear whether this is the position of the Representative, his government or the GAC, but when read together with the above, this is not acceptable to me.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">I have not that many concerns with regards to Delegation of a ccTLD (after establishment), including a Transfer of an exsiting ccTLD.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">But as far as Revocation of an incumbent ccTLD Manager is concerned, I have stated numerous times, that we need to preserve the existing rights of incumbent ccTLD Managers.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">This is NOT negotiable.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">And the best way of doing this is by way of the Framework of Interpretation Principles.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Mr Chehade has apparently in public (and on the record) accused senior ccTLD managers of not knowing how the IANA functions work.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">As a ccTLD Manager with 24 years uninterrupted service I tend to agree that I do not know how the IANA function is operated by the current Function Manager (ICANN), though I do have a really good idea how it SHOULD be
operated.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Therefor I have requested that Mr Chehade explain to us how this works. I can not find any feedback on this issue.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Unless these issues are addressed to my satisfaction (and I am not saying that they must be resolved necessarily to my satisfaction) I shall, as a ccNSO appointed member, be formally objecting to any output of the CCWG-Accountability.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">I am circulating this to the usual ccTLD lists as well.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">greetings, el<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">On 2015-04-08 12:10, Brenda Brewer wrote:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">> Hi Eberhard,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">> Please see attachment in pdf format.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">> Best,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">> Brenda<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">[...]<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">-- <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Dr. Eberhard W. Lisse \ / Obstetrician & Gynaecologist (Saar)<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">el@lisse.NA / * | Telephone: +264 81 124 6733 (cell)<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">PO Box 8421 \ /<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Bachbrecht, Namibia ;____/<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">_______________________________________________<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</body>
</html>