[CCWG-ACCT] got some lawyerly answers on membership structure

[James M. Bladel]

Hi Eberhard:

To your point here:
"that may be so, though I disagree, again because it does not work for the non-members of the ccNSO, it does not address the bilateral relationship, and, more importantly it has failed. "

I don't think "failed" is the right term, versus "doesn't go far enough" or "is incomplete."    If a proposal were to be an improvement for all SO/ACs, -except- the ccNSO,  and (also importantly)  it does not create harm or exacerbate existing problems, then I think we should not reject it, but consider it part of the solution package and keep working.

Thanks-

J.



From: Dr Eberhard W Lisse <el at lisse.na<mailto:el at lisse.na>>
Date: Wednesday, January 28, 2015 at 23:54
To: CCWG Accountability <accountability-cross-community at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org>>
Cc: "directors at omadhina.net<mailto:directors at omadhina.net>" <directors at omadhina.net<mailto:directors at omadhina.net>>
Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] got some lawyerly answers on membership structure

Chris,

that may be so, though I disagree, again because it does not work for the non-members of the ccNSO, it does not address the bilateral relationship, and, more importantly it has failed.

And the Board is at fault there too.

Railroading the incumbent ccTLD Manager, putting un-consented revocation and transfer on the consent agenda, ticking off check lists without looking beyond "traffic lights", issuing boilerplate "rationales" are as wrong as serious misconduct of proposed (incoming) ccTLD Managers such as repatriating a ccTLD from inside the country to a foreign spam haven within minutes after the transfer. And you know exactly who I mean.

What we need to do is to get the FoI Principles established.

And, come to think of it, as far as the ccNSO is concerned (as per your suggestion) we can just run them as a PDP because all the heavy lifting has been done, and the ccNSO unanimously approves of them. Maybe we can even fast track them.

We also need the IANA function Manager to publish ALL criteria it requires from a proposed (incoming) Manager. it would even make applications easier to make, and to evaluate.

greetings, el


Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini

On Jan 29, 2015, at 01:21, Chris Disspain <ceo at auda.org.au<mailto:ceo at auda.org.au>> wrote:


  *   These problems exist today, under the current IANA/ICANN arrangement.


In short, I don't think we should give up on one or more proposals that do not solve everyone's issues.

Agree James. Speaking on behalf of auDA I believe that the ccTLD community should solve the issues being debated on this thread, not the CCWG. Some of the over-arching accountability mechanisms the CCWG ends up recommending may well be useful for ccTLDs in certain circumstances BUT a ccTLD specific mechanism to deal with re-delegation 'disputes' is a matter for the ccTLD community to create and for the ccNSO to then endorse under its policy development process.


Cheers,


Chris Disspain | Chief Executive Officer

.au Domain Administration Ltd

[...]
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20150129/1b4bfb6d/attachment.html>