<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">Dear Co-Chairs,</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">Please allow me to point out that I am not "representing the IPC" or "representing the interests of the IPC" in my involvement in the CCWG, in which I am a "participant." I joined the CCWG of my personal volition, in my individual capacity. I do, however, represent the Commercial Stakeholder Group in the CWG-IANA, in which I am a "member," appointed by the CSG.</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">Best regards,</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">Greg Shatan</div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 7:24 PM, Dr Eberhard W 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"><div dir="auto"><div>Dear Co-Chairs,</div><div><br></div><div>I apologize for emailing the participant representing the interests of the IPC directly.</div><span class=""><div><br></div><div>el<br>-- <div>Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini</div></div></span><div><div class="h5"><div><br>On Apr 24, 2015, at 00:22, Dr Eberhard W Lisse <<a href="mailto:el@lisse.na" target="_blank">el@lisse.na</a>> wrote:<br><br></div><blockquote type="cite"><div><div>Dear Co-Chairs, </div><div><br></div><div>let me quote from the transcript of the Legal SubTeam session in question the participant representing the Interests of the IP who was chairing in an acting capacity:</div><div><p style="color:rgba(0,0,0,0.701961)"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:'Times New Roman'">"In addition another email came up today asking a question which the sender wished to have the lawyers look into that was an email from Dr. (Eberhard Elisa).</span></p><p style="color:rgba(0,0,0,0.701961)"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:'Times New Roman'">And his topic was what gives the US government the right to control the root anyway? He also indicated that he had perceived a past promise to for the lawyers to review or answer this question.</span></p><p style="color:rgba(0,0,0,0.701961)"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:'Times New Roman'">I have not done an exhaustive review of the record but don’t recall any such </span><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:'Times New Roman'">promise being </span><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:'Times New Roman'">made. I also don’t see the direct linkage between that and </span><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:'Times New Roman'">Workstream 1 or even between that and accountability per se.</span></p><p style="color:rgba(0,0,0,0.701961)"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:'Times New Roman'">So I think both - there</span><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:'Times New Roman'">’s </span><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:'Times New Roman'">both that particular issue and the others that I circulated a little bit earlier we have to decide how to deal with those and what if anything to assigned to the lawyers."</span></p><div><span style="background-color:rgba(255,255,255,0)">The next reference to the issue is by Mr McAulay a little later:</span></div><p style="color:rgba(0,0,0,0.701961)"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:'Times New Roman'">"And so my hope is that while Dr. </span><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:'Times New Roman'">(Elisa)’s </span><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:'Times New Roman'">question is interesting is that we raise questions right now that deal with Workstream 1 for, you know, in order to support the CCWG as best we can between now and April 21."</span><span style="font-family:'Times New Roman';font-size:12pt"> </span></p><div><br></div>I can not see a consensus call, not that an un-chartered SubTeam would be authorized to make the decision in the first place.</div><div><br></div><div>el</div><div>-- <div>Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini</div></div><div><br>On Apr 23, 2015, at 23:09, Greg Shatan <<a href="mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com" target="_blank">gregshatanipc@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br><br></div><blockquote type="cite"><div><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">Dear Co-Chairs,</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">Please allow me to correct certain of the misstatements that have recently issued, while the rest of us are trying to work.</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">First, I decided nothing. The decision referred to was made by the Legal Subteam.</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">Second, I was not "pipped to the post" to use the the anachronistic sporting phrase, since I was not racing to do anything. Indeed, I have said far less than I might, so that I am not drawn into this distraction. I agreed with something I read; no more, no less. But it seems "par for the course" to have an intent or basis ascribed to me that I do not have.</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">Third, my view on the request for legal assistance has nothing to do with my affiliation with the GNSO. It was based on my view of the relevance of the request to the work of the CCWG. See above regarding "misascription" of intent or basis.</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">Finally, in my view,the meeting so far today have disproved the characterizations made below. Sadly, anyone who took their hands off the oar (to continue in a sporting vein) and elected not to participate would never know.</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">Best regards,</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">Greg Shatan</div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 5:49 PM, Dr Eberhard W 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"><div dir="auto"><div>Dear Co-Chairs,</div><div><br></div><div>pleas convey my disappointment to the participant representing the interests of the IPC that he was pipped to the post, fortunately only by another participant from the gNSO.</div><div><br></div><div>Intense work days, indeed...</div><span><div><br></div><div>el</div><div>-- <div>Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini</div></div></span></div></blockquote></div></div>
</div></blockquote></div></blockquote></div></div></div><br>_______________________________________________<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>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div>