<div dir="ltr">Hi all:<br><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On 21 April 2015 at 23:25, Dr Eberhard Lisse <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:el@lisse.na" target="_blank">el@lisse.na</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Dear Co-Chairs,<br>
<br>
could you please explain to the gentleman from the IPC that it is NOT<br>
possible for ccTLD Managers, whether they are members of the ccNSO or<br>
not to become a "member organization" (as we are discussing here).<br>
<br>
Unless EACH and EVERY ccTLD Manager formally joins such organization<br>
such organization will not have any standing. At all.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>This is clearly not accurate. If this argument had any legs, then the same could be said of the ccNSO.</div><div><br></div><div>ccTLD managers participate in ICANN through the ccNSO and would do through a community mechanism that involved membership in order to deal with ICANN and global policies, such as they are - not to manage the bilateral relationships Eberbard mentions below.</div><div><br></div><div>On Chris's broader point, he has been involved with the ccNSO since before it was formed and I have not. I do not understand the aversion he alleges in respect of memberships. I know things are pretty different in 2015 to what they were in 1998.</div><div><br></div><div>I think our job is to set up a clear and coherent framework for ccTLDs along with the rest of the community to consider, and our job too is to explain clearly what such a model (including any options) would ACTUALLY as opposed to on a FUD basis, offer to and require of members/designators or classes of members/designators -- including any issues with associations etc.</div><div><br></div><div>If ccTLD managers chose as a group to not participate in a scheme that was workable, and thereby prevented meaningful accountability reforms in ICANN, then they would be putting the IANA stewardship transition at risk. </div><div><br></div><div>I don't think they'd to that lightly. But I do think that however unlikely, the fact this could happen ( due to our non-contracted status, in the end we ccs have the choice) does mean that the doctrine of organisational and institutional conservatism is very important.</div><div><br></div><div>Which is why I am glad to see Chris's questions assigned to the counsel, and why I look forward to their response.</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>cheers</div><div>Jordan</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<br>
ccTLD Managers have a bilateral relationship with ICANN, if at all and<br>
this we MUST establish, as per my numerous requests.<br>
<br>
This is similar to the GAC, I really don't think that it will be even<br>
possible, unless by Multilateral Treaty between all states participating.<br>
<br>
But even if it happened, the very nature of how governments make<br>
decisions in international fora (very, very few governments allow other<br>
governments to "speak for", or commit it to something, on principle),<br>
make this unwieldy and unlikely.<br>
<br>
greetings, el<br>
<span class=""><br>
On 2015-04-21 08:35, Greg Shatan wrote:<br>
> Chris,<br>
><br>
> The simple answer is that the SOACs as currently configured are not<br>
> a very good vehicle for many of the enhanced powers we seek. Once you<br>
> make them into members and give them legal personhood everything else<br>
> becomes much easier.<br>
><br>
> However, you assumed no change to the SOACs, which made the answers much<br>
> harder.<br>
><br>
> Greg<br>
><br>
> On Tuesday, April 21, 2015, Chris Disspain <<a href="mailto:ceo@auda.org.au">ceo@auda.org.au</a><br>
</span><span class="">> <mailto:<a href="mailto:ceo@auda.org.au">ceo@auda.org.au</a>>> wrote:<br>
><br>
> Greg, All,<br>
><br>
> With respect, I think we are overcomplicating the issue. I simply<br>
> want to gain a base line for the discussion about any changes<br>
> necessary to achieve what we want. We agreed on jurisdiction that<br>
> if we can get acceptable escalations and remedies without changing<br>
> jurisdiction then we should leave well alone for now, I think we<br>
> should apply the same principle here. I am clear what the lawyers<br>
> recommend we do BUT I am not clear about what we can do or what<br>
> compromises we need to make if we were to maintain the current<br>
> structure. I think that is a key part of our deliberations.<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> Cheers,<br>
><br>
><br>
> Chris<br>
</span>[..]<br>
<span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888">--<br>
Dr. Eberhard W. Lisse \ / Obstetrician & Gynaecologist (Saar)<br>
el@lisse.NA / * | Telephone: <a href="tel:%2B264%2081%20124%206733" value="+264811246733">+264 81 124 6733</a> (cell)<br>
PO Box 8421 \ /<br>
Bachbrecht, Namibia ;____/<br>
</font></span><div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5">_______________________________________________<br>
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a><br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><div><br></div>-- <br><div class="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr">Jordan Carter<br><br>Chief Executive <br><b>InternetNZ</b><br><br>04 495 2118 (office) | +64 21 442 649 (mob)<br><a href="mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz" target="_blank">jordan@internetnz.net.nz</a> <br>Skype: jordancarter<br><br><i>A better world through a better Internet </i><br><br></div></div></div></div>
</div></div>