[CCWG-Accountability] the term "community"

[Dr Eberhard W Lisse]

Dear Mr Arasteh.

I have also not referred to the outcome of NetMundial.  So I am
quite pleased that we have reached consensus to formally object to
its existence and any related output.


Since you asked, even though the historic role of the USG to get the
Internet going is commendable and its alleged, flimsy claim to the
root has worked as far as I am concerned, in my view there is no
role whatsoever for governments in this business.

That some governments don't like that is obvious to even the most
cursory observer.  I do not intend to evaluate the performance and
actions taken by various governments.  But not because I would
require a mandate to do so, but it would be a waste of time.

And in any case, the current role of governments hardly rates as
lower status, the GAC has more influence than most other
stakeholder.  I am sure you have become aware during your tenure,
that GAC Advice has a specific formal status in the Bylaws if I am
not mistaken.

On the other hand I have noted an enormous volume of contributions
by an ICG liaison who also happens to be a GAC representative of his
country, hardly any of which I can see as originating from or
representing the ICG, so it is not clear who this person is
representing.

This does not bother me, neither would bother me if ICANN reacted to
comments from individuals whether representative of many
individuals, organizations, entities or governments, in particular
since no process that I am familiar with (Charter and ccNSO
selection) require to introduce only opinion that has been approved
by others.

Members have been selected by their SOs for skills, knowledge and/or
experience and I feel comfortable enough after 24-odd years
continuous management of the .NA ccTLD to be in no doubt whatsoever
that my position with regards to the ccTLDs is the right one.

But even if it was wrong about the 250-odd others that I will not
accept anything less for NA-NiC and myself.

As far as the .NA ccTLD Manager is concerned, as NA-NiC's Managing
Director, I have certain fiduciary responsibilities under the
Namibian Companies' Act and (perhaps) even other legislation.  I
also hold certain Intellectual Property rights under (at least)
Namibian legislation which I am required to defend lest I not loose
them.

In particular since a ccTLD only has a bilateral relationship with
the IANA Function Manager, each ccTLD for itself, if any, and there
is no and can be no organization, entity or government that can
speak for ccTLDs.


As far as (other) Accountability is concerned I am as consensus
driven as the next person.

greetings, el




On 2015-01-11 11:39 , Kavouss Arasteh wrote:
> Dear Dr. Eberhard W.Lisse,
> 
> Thank you very much for your reply
> 
> First of all, I appologize if I have bothered you referring to you
> as Eberhard and not your full name as you wished to be so called.
> I have noted that you referred to me as Mr.  Kavouss Arasteh and
> not my first name Kavouss.
> 
> Secondly, I have not referred to the outcome of NetMundial as the
> Declaration was a totally Non Binding and simply a declaration.
> It was an evenet and we aprreciate the organizer of that event.
> 
> What I referred to was that atleast there was reference to the
> footing of each entitiy and each constituency of the Global
> Multistakeholder.  Whther that categorisation ( four main
> categories ) was or was not wrong that is another issue.
> 
> I do not intend to evaluate the performance and actions taken by
> various governments as this is not a proper forum and I do not
> have such mandate to do so.
> 
> What I am trying to find out is where is the Government's role in
> this business?  The only area that they are appearing is the
> GAC.which is simply has an advisory nature where as other players
> as per any structural arrangements has a decision making role.
> 
> If the Internet and ICANN is an inclussive and democratic process
> why governments are treated with lower status than other players?
> 
> On the other hand I have noted that an individual make comments to
> the process on its own behalf which create some legitimacy
> inconsistencies as it is not clear whom that person representing.
> When ICANN referrs to many comments received from those
> individuals who do not represtiative of many many other
> individuals and ICANN reacts based on such non representative
> views.  That bothers me
> 
> Do you have a solution to propose to remedy these two basic
> problems?
> 
> Regards
> Kavouss
> 
> 2015-01-11 7:00 GMT+01:00 Dr Eberhard W Lisse <el at lisse.na
> <mailto:el at lisse.na>>:
> 
>     Dear Mr Arasteh,
> 
>     it is a real privilege seeing a professional, experienced,
>     government negotiator at work.
> 
> 
>     My position is very clear and has been over many years, as far
>     as ccTLDs are concerned, in particular.NA.
> 
>     For each, the corresponding Manager is the ONLY party
>     concerned to have any, if at all, relationship of any kind
>     with the IANA function operator.  In other words,
>     individually, not represented by any organization of any kind.
> 
>     This has particular implication for CURRENT ccTLD Managers and
>     their (existing) rights, as stated in the 2005 GAC Principles
>     and the Framework of Interpretation Principles.
> 
>     It is self evident that any citizen or inhabitant of a country
>     is subject to the law of the land, however harsh or in
>     violation of international conventions and or human rights
>     they may be, but the ccTLD management is only subject to
>     security and stability of the Internet.  Nothing else.
> 
>     Only in cases of substantial misconduct can the IANA Function
>     Manager intervene.
> 
>     To be very clear, there is not even a good foundation for this
>     in RFC1591, but the FoI Wg found, after considerable
>     discussion, consensus, because it is so easy to do an honest,
>     equitable and reasonable job.
> 
>     This all stems from the fact that many of the ccTLDs, most
>     certainly .NA, predate ICANN, the RFC1591 to which
>     nevertheless most of us abide by voluntarily (as it does make
>     mostly sense), and even the flimsy claim the US Government
>     alleges over the IANA Function (and the root), the so called
>     Teranode Contract.
> 
>     So they, and most certainly the ccTLD Manager for.NA and I, do
>     have existing rights, and I do not wish to even introduce the
>     property aspects here.  Some even say ccTLDs predating ICANN
>     have contracts with Mr Postel's estate, but then I doubt it'll
>     ever get to that stage.
> 
>     Existing rights can not retroactively be interfered with by a
>     third party (unilaterally).
> 
>     This is all so convoluted that it required almost 5 years (or
>     more?)  of work of the DRD and FoI Wg(s) to get to consensus.
> 
>     And, as far as accountability is concerned it would make
>     things so much easier if each (current) ccTLD Manager entered
>     into a proper Contract with the IANA Function Manager, which
>     at the same time would prevent the legal limbo the IANA
>     Function Manager will find itself in with regards to ccTLDs as
>     soon as the USG releases its claim to the IANA Function and
>     the root, however flimsy this may be.
> 
>     As far as selection of a NEW Manager for a ccTLD is concerned,
>     ie if a vacancy arises, this is another matter.  Of course the
>     government will be a significantly interested party as (many)
>     others.
> 
>     The NEW ccTLD Manager of course may be subject to more
>     oversight (in terms of conditions of appointment, for lack of
>     a better word) which however is not my problem, more like a
>     concern.
> 
>     Whether my position reflects a consensus of ccTLDs or not, I
>     am not in doubt here.
> 
>     As far as gTLDs are concerned, they are first of all not my
>     problem, and second of all they have entered into contracts
>     individually, so they (may) have given away some rights
>     themselves.
> 
>     Protocols and addresses I am not that involved in and familiar
>     with, personally, and from a governance perspective, but I
>     trust the IETF process, even though property aspects of IP
>     addresses are intriguing.
> 
> 
>     That said, I am vehemently opposed against ANY infringement,
>     whatsoever and however small, of fundamental human rights,
>     such as, inter alia, equality, freedom of speech, or publish
>     cartoons for that matter, and what the German Constitutional
>     Court calls Informational Self Determination.
> 
>     Some governments have an worse track records than others, and
>     some governments are more active in taking control over the
>     Internet than others.  And sovereignty doesn't trump
>     everything else, by default.
> 
>     I totally disagree with the mere existence of Netmundial, and
>     can state unequivocally, again, that I will formally object in
>     any consensus poll against any anything related thereto.
> 
>     greetings, el
> 
>     Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini
> 
>     On Jan 10, 2015, at 23:46, Kavouss Arasteh
>     <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com <mailto:kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>> wrote:
> 
[...]
-- 
Dr. Eberhard W. Lisse  \        / Obstetrician & Gynaecologist (Saar)
el at lisse.NA            / *     |   Telephone: +264 81 124 6733 (cell)
PO Box 8421             \     /
Bachbrecht, Namibia     ;____/