[CCWG-ACCT] Legal question

Tue Apr 21 19:05:51 UTC 2015

>Unless EACH and EVERY ccTLD Manager formally joins such organization
>such organization will not have any standing. At all.

I have to disagree. In the situation that the conscious decision of a ccTLD manager NOT to be a member is the sole reason for that manager not being a member

Best,

Roelof

From: Jordan Carter <jordan at internetnz.net.nz<mailto:jordan at internetnz.net.nz>>
Date: dinsdag 21 april 2015 20:32
Cc: Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org>>
Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Legal question

Hi all:

On 21 April 2015 at 23:25, Dr Eberhard Lisse <el at lisse.na<mailto:el at lisse.na>> wrote:
Dear Co-Chairs,

could you please explain to the gentleman from the IPC that it is NOT
possible for ccTLD Managers, whether they are members of the ccNSO or
not to become a "member organization" (as we are discussing here).

Unless EACH and EVERY ccTLD Manager formally joins such organization
such organization will not have any standing. At all.

This is clearly not accurate. If this argument had any legs, then the same could be said of the ccNSO.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Which is why I am glad to see Chris's questions assigned to the counsel, and why I look forward to their response.

cheers
Jordan

ccTLD Managers have a bilateral relationship with ICANN, if at all and
this we MUST establish, as per my numerous requests.

This is similar to the GAC, I really don't think that it will be even
possible, unless by Multilateral Treaty between all states participating.

But even if it happened, the very nature of how governments make
decisions in international fora (very, very few governments allow other
governments to "speak for", or commit it to something, on principle),
make this unwieldy and unlikely.

greetings, el

On 2015-04-21 08:35, Greg Shatan wrote:
> Chris,
>
> The simple answer is that the SOACs as currently configured are not
> a very good vehicle for many of the enhanced powers we seek. Once you
> make them into members and give them legal personhood everything else
> becomes much easier.
>
> However, you assumed no change to the SOACs, which made the answers much
> harder.
>
> Greg
>
> On Tuesday, April 21, 2015, Chris Disspain <ceo at auda.org.au<mailto:ceo at auda.org.au>
> <mailto:ceo at auda.org.au<mailto:ceo at auda.org.au>>> wrote:
>
>     Greg, All,
>
>     With respect, I think we are overcomplicating the issue. I simply
>     want to gain a base line for the discussion about any changes
>     necessary  to achieve what we want. We agreed on jurisdiction that
>     if we can get acceptable escalations and remedies without changing
>     jurisdiction then we should leave well alone for now, I think we
>     should apply the same principle here. I am clear what the lawyers
>     recommend we do BUT I am not clear about what we can do or what
>     compromises we need to make if we were to maintain the current
>     structure. I think that is a key part of our deliberations.
>
>
>
>     Cheers,
>
>
>     Chris
[..]
--
Dr. Eberhard W. Lisse  \        / Obstetrician & Gynaecologist (Saar)
el at lisse.NA<mailto:el at lisse.NA>            / *     |   Telephone: +264 81 124 6733<tel:%2B264%2081%20124%206733> (cell)
PO Box 8421             \     /
Bachbrecht, Namibia     ;____/
_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

--
Jordan Carter

Chief Executive
InternetNZ

04 495 2118 (office) | +64 21 442 649 (mob)
jordan at internetnz.net.nz<mailto:jordan at internetnz.net.nz>
Skype: jordancarter

A better world through a better Internet

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20150421/7513fb89/attachment.html>