[CCWG-Accountability] the term "community"

[Lisse Eberhard]

Dear Co-Chairs,

through the co-chairs

I find it disrespectful to produce replies that are hard to read by
way of (or rather lack of) formatting, lack the use of a spelling
checker, and/or, as paragraph 4) are plain incoherent.

I find it amusing when in the discourse one side uses arguments that
the other did not make did not make to counter arguments that the
other side did make, are valid but are not addressed.

Though it’s well known negotiations tactics.

With regards to the Board being the final arbiter, virtually no one,
other than the governments concerned wants governments to run the
Internet or have significant input on its management.  I have
similar concerns, by the way about Big Business dominating ICANN.

Whether a (as in one single) state has sovereign rights over the
ccTLD corresponding to an ISO string, is heavily debatable in the
first place, and even if it were so it would be a bilateral matter
between that individual state and that ccTLD. The ccNSO has nothing
to do with that whatsoever, and would in any case been barred from
making such a policy.

I also wish to point out that many governments are fundamentally
opposed to what we are trying to achieve here, namely achieving
and/or preserving Net Freedom.

That governments can use the process to twist it on its head, ie
equate ‘control’ with ‘accountability’ is one of these facts in life
that we have become accustomed to.

I wish to point out that I am not here to increase comfort levels,
but with regards to “speaking friendly” it’s content that matters
not volume (in the double sense).  

And I am well known now for many years to write what I mean
and mean what I write.

greetings, el


> On 11 Jan 2015, at 21:07 , Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Dear Dr. Eberhard
> Thank you very much again for your thoughtful reply
> There are areas that we agree and areas that we disagree.
> Having said that
> I have the following Comments :
> 1 ,you did indicate that
> Quote
> 
> "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"
> Unquote
> My reply wouild be that all those so-called enormous volume of contributions
> by an ICG liaison who also happens to be a GAC representative of his
> country, were submitted AS A PARTICIPANT and NOT AS ICG LIAISON.
> If you dear Dr. Eberhard are of the view that I do not have the right or I should not be allowed to contribute as Particpant to the activities of CCWG and remain silent like many other other participants ,While I respect your personal views I do not wish to waste even a minute and arfgue with you . Istead we believe that MEMBERS OR PARTICIPANTS  all need to put hand in hand and put their thought together to deal with this veryy important issues that we have before us and not contesting why a participant contribute .
> I hope you would agree with me ? Just hope 
> 
> 2. You have also mentioned that
> Quote
> 
> "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"
> Unquote .
> 
> But the same Bylaw provide that the Board can reject GAC Recommendations just with simple majority.
> There was a notion at GAC to upgrade that simple majority with super majority of category 1 ( 2/3 ) ,there are other siupermajorities 3/4 and 4/5. In fact US NOW REQUIRED ICANN TO DECIDE WITH SUPER MAJORITY OF CATEGORIES 2 OR 3.
> However, the request of GAC approved by the Board but after public comments it was rehjected .
> I do not wish to say who were those individual who opposed to that 2/3 the  so-called strong position of GAC is at merci of simple majority of the Board still I do not know whther they really represent the Golbal Multistakeholder as they are designated by SO or proposed by Nomom  and the Global Multistakeholders has no direct influence on that designation .
> 
> 3. You did also referred to the role of ccTLD managers
> Qoute
> 
> "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"
> 
> Unquote
> 
> Sorry to disagree with you totally .
> The arrangem,ents and contract between ccTLD manager and IANA is something and the sovereign rights of Member States ( governments ) over their ccTLD is other thing
> As you may know well there are givernments that do not abide with any ICANN on their ccTLDs .Out of 206 ( almost couzntries or dépendent territories about 70 countries do not have any relation with ccNSO .
> You may defend your own position which is legitimate but you may allow others to defend their position as they deem appropriate .If a simple relation between ccTLD mANGER AND iana fully and adequately address and observe the entirte vast and complex issue of ccTLD then we do not need these SO on Naming because whatever they comeup would be useless as the contract bet ween ccTLD manager in IANA Manager is totally independent of all thes
> I do not know what we are talking about ?
> There are legal gap between what you determined  as the objectives. purposes, scope of activities of CCtzld manager and IANA Manager and the ccTLD itself.
> 4. I wish to clarify the following
> I am not defending that Goverments should have an exclusive role on the matter but they must be abale to play their role  in a multistakehoder inclussive approach or model
> What you declared is ,if I understand it correctly that  
> 
> Qoute
> 
> "and there is no and can be no organization, entity or government that can
> speak for ccTLDs".
> 
> Unquote
> That is a  surprising and strage opinion with which I am not comfortable ( the most soft disagreement as you seems to speak friendly)
> Have nice Sunday Evening
> Kavouss

> […]