[CCWG-ACCT] Special interests (was Re: Delegation / redelegation and scope of CCWG (Was:Re: ISTACC call 2015-04-15))

[Dr Eberhard Lisse]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

Dear Co-Chairs,

one is NEVER wrong to go through the chair.

I will address only a selected very few members, participants or
observers CCWG-Accountability directly, and probably only off list.

I also am totally dumbfounded how a ccNSO appointed Co-Chair would
use incorrect terminology.

	It's Delegation, REVOCATION & TRANSFER (though the latter is
	actually a Delegation) and Retirement.


If 20% of ccNSO appointed members of the CCWG (me) is adamant about
something, it is not for a Participant, who is not an appointed
Member, who is not even ccTLD, who is only in an acting capacity of
a chair to a SubTeam to torpedo it.

It most certainly is out of order for one Co-Chair to then convey
that that's that.  Whether it's intentional or not.

It should be taken up, with haste.


This is very clearly not an attempt at Developing Policy, which is
as I stated very clearly in the ISTAC call, is for the ccNSO
exclusively, as stated in the By-Laws.  I have my own opinion about
what that Policy should be and what I can do about it, but that's
not the issue here.


I plainly don't care any more about careful correspondence with CWG
or ICG or whatever abbreviation is the order of the day.

I care about the process that is being "followed" (as in railroaded)
and the substance (as in superficial tinkering).

The Charter is very clear.

It is about accountability mechanisms that must be in place before
the transition and about those that can be done after the
transition.


We REALLY need to find out, what the foundation is of what we are
dealing with.  Not only on a fundamental level, but also as a
contingency.

Maybe even a Stress Test (and as general, as unlawyer-like
formulated as I can):

ST 99: A ccTLD Manager succeeds in a US (Federal (Appeals) Court)
with denying ICANN to interfere with (revoke) the ccTLD in question.

Possible scenarios not out of the realm of the imaginable could be:

	- the Court ruling that the USG has had no claim to the root
	(hence ccTLDs); or

	- the Court ruling that the root database is an asset,
	Federal alienation procedures have not been followed (if
	any); or

	- the Court ruling that the CCTLD is some form of property
	and the attempted conversion was intentional, awarding
	(significant) punitive damages including lifting the
	corporate veil; or

	- the Court ruling that anti-trust or other legislation has
	been breached, that may result in criminal prosecutions

or any or all of the above or others.

Closing our eyes while rushing about about will not achieve anything.

I am not saying I must get the result I want, even though of course
I would like that as much as Belzegreg seems to for his agenda.
Even though I don't get paid for standing up for the (smaller)
ccTLDs and the principle (of Accountability and Transparency).

But then maybe I am just doing what I was sent here to do.

greetings, el

On 2015-04-17 07:58, Mathieu Weill wrote:
> Dear Eberhard,
> 
> First, please feel free to address us directly and by our first 
> names, let's not add any difficulty here.
> 
> Since our call on wednesday, the underlying concern that you raise 
> has become clearer to me, and your email below provides further 
> context.  This is very helpful.
> 
> The question you raise in the note below is whether the CCWG scope 
> includes accountability mechanisms related to (quoting your 
> message) "how the IANA Function Manager (ICANN at present) makes 
> the actual decisions".
> 
> Our group has been very careful so far not to discuss 
> accountability mechanisms with respect to items that are out of the
> scope of our charter.  You will remember that, in our 
> correspondence with the CWG, we carefully phrased that the review 
> and redress mechanisms would only be applicable „to the extent“
> ICANN makes decisions regarding ccTLDs.  That would not encompass
> questions of delegation and redelegations.
> 
> I have expressed my view as a ccTLD manager yesterday during our 
> ccTLD call, but as co-chair, I am perfectly ok with asking other 
> members of the CCWG to provide their own input, as to whether or 
> not this item should be considered in our scope.
> 
> Best regards, Mathieu
[...]
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org
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=fMEP
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----