[ST-WP] Legal advice request for clarification

[Dr Eberhard W Lisse]

Dear Co-Chairs,

the fixed timing of the Stress Test Meetings is inconvenient, which
I have expressed several times, which has not resulted in a
rotation.

This prevents me from participating, and will add to my intention to
object to its output in as much as it enters the CCWG's final
output.

The same applies to the Legal Sub Wg Calls, and I still have not
received any feedback with regards to my request that the legal
advisers comment on the legal foundations of the IANA function.

That needs to be addressed.



el


On 2015-04-14 06:28 , Cheryl Langdon-Orr wrote:
> Thank you for this follow up Leon, As the ST-WP has its weekly
> meeting in a few hours and this matter was arising from our last
> call, at this stage I propose that I will put these question
> clarification matters before the WP and get back to you after our
> call...
> 
> But as to the proposed forwarding of the v9 doc as part of the
> prep/background materials for the Legal Advisers goes, I would
> certainly say yes to that...
> 
> 
> /Cheryl Langdon-O//rr ...  /(CLO)
> 
> about.me/cheryl.LangdonOrr
> Cheryl Langdon-Orr on about.me
>  
> 
> <http://about.me/cheryl.LangdonOrr>
>  
> 
> On 14 April 2015 at 13:25, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía
> <leonfelipe at sanchez.mx <mailto:leonfelipe at sanchez.mx>> wrote:
> 
>     Dear Cheryl and Steve (ladies first, of course),
> 
>     We have received a request from staff to ask questions to the
>     external legal advisors regarding some of the work of the
>     stress test work party.  Staff's comment was:
> 
>     "The stress-test work party is asking for external legal
>     advice on mechanisms/community powers to 'remedy' Board
>     inaction.  Specifically whether, for example, if consensus
>     advice from an AC is not acted on by the Board might this
>     'trigger' a mechanism?
> 
>     ST-WP particularly asks if the external legal advisory could
>     review Stress test 17, and provided an MP3 clip of the
>     relevant part of discussions of their last call, and
>     supporting email from Jonathan Zuck."
> 
>     If staff's comments are a fair reflection of your request,
>     could you formulate these into questions we can put to
>     lawyers?
> 
>     Some suggested wording for the questions could be along
>     “Considering the different mechanisms that have already been
>     analyzed: Which would be the requisites to trigger community
>     action against Board inaction?  Do this requisites or
>     situations need to be specified in some document i.e.
>     bylaws?” I would welcome your feedback on this suggested
>     wording.
> 
>     Would you also like us to forward the document "Applying
>     Stress Tests [Draft v9]"
>     https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/ST-WP+Draft+Documents
>     to the laywers to have read in anticipation of future
>     questions from the ST-WP?
> 
>     Best regards,
> 
> 
>     León
[....]
-- 
Dr. Eberhard W. Lisse  \        / Obstetrician & Gynaecologist (Saar)
el at lisse.NA            / *     |   Telephone: +264 81 124 6733 (cell)
PO Box 8421             \     /
Bachbrecht, Namibia     ;____/