Addressing remarks "through the chair" does not relieve the speaker of the
obligation to avoid impugning the motives of his or her colleagues. To the
contrary, Robert's Rules of Order address the question of decorum in debate
without regard for the modality by which the comment is made:

"43. Decorum in Debate. In debate a member must confine himself to the
question before the assembly, and avoid personalities. He cannot reflect
upon any act of the assembly, unless he intends to conclude his remarks with
a motion to rescind such action, or else while debating such a motion. In
referring to another member, he should, as much as possible, avoid using his
name, rather referring to him as "the member who spoke last," or in some
other way describing him. The officers of the assembly should always be
referred to by their official titles. It is not allowable to arraign the
motives of a member, but the nature or consequences of a measure may be
condemned in strong terms. It is not the man, but the measure, that is the
subject of debate."

Or consider this from Jefferson's Manual of Parliamentary Procedure:

"No person in speaking, is to mention a member then present by his name; but
to describe him by his seat in the House, or who spoke last, or on the other
side of the question, &c. Mem. in Hakew. 3 Smyth's Comw. L. 2. c. 3. nor to
digress from the matter to fall upon the person, Scob. 31. Hale Parl. 133. 2
Hats. 166. by speaking reviling, nipping, or unmannerly words against a
particular member. Smyth's Comw. L. 2. c. 3. The consequences of a measure
may be reprobated in strong terms; but to arraign the motives of those who
propose or advocate it, is a personality, and against order. Qui digreditur
a materia ad personam, Mr. Speaker ought to suppress. Ord. Com. 1604. Apr.
19."

Food for thought in an increasingly acrimonious discussion.

Paul

Paul Rosenzweig
paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com
O: +1 (202) 547-0660
M: +1 (202) 329-9650
VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739
Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066
Link to my PGP Key

-----Original Message-----
From: Edward Morris [mailto:egmorris1@toast.net]
Sent: Thursday, April 23, 2015 7:50 PM
To: Drazek, Keith
Cc: CCWG Accountability
Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] [Acct-Legal] Accountability questions to law firms

Amen Keith. Well put.

Ed

Sent from my iPhone

On Apr 24, 2015, at 12:12 AM, Drazek, Keith <kdrazek@verisign.com> wrote:

Dear Co-Chairs,

I would note that every one of us has an interest in the outcome of these

proceedings, or we wouldn't be participating and spending our precious time
and resources.

Some of us are here for personal interest, some professional, some on

behalf of our employers or clients. Many of us are participating for a
combination of reasons.

Verisign unquestionably has a strong interest in an accountable ICANN. No

one who has observed my engagement in this process for the last 12 months
could dispute that. For that I make no apologies.

In the same way, I do not expect our colleague to apologize for

participating in this process to protect his own personal, property and
financial interests and to address concerns about a possible future
revocation of his ccTLD.

Neither are "ulterior motives" as our colleague characterized. I am

employed by a corporation to ensure its goals are achieved. I am also
personally and professionally invested in the successful outcome of this
process for the ICANN community. Our colleague is self-employed and is
seeking to achieve his own goals for his own reasons. One is not more pure
than the other.

No one should be criticized or demonized for pursuing and promoting their

interests in a collaborative endeavor. That's what the multi-stakeholder
model is all about.

Regards,

Keith

Sent from my iPhone

On Apr 23, 2015, at 5:29 PM, Dr Eberhard W Lisse <el@lisse.na> wrote:

Dear Co-Chairs,

please express my admiration to the gentleman representing Verisign's

interests for his comprehensive contribution at this late hour. I am quite
impressed at the skills employed, right out of Tea Party negotiation school.

It just so happens that the economics of veracity are quite liberal.

It was just the gentleman from the IPC who decided during a Legal SubTeam

call that this (addressing the fundamental question on which this all rests,
and which, come to think about it, happens to affect Verisign's business
model) was not to be done.

As the gentleman representing Verisign, which has just this tiniest bit

at stake here, has read the Charter he does in fact know, very well, that
(only) operational IANA issues are not for the CCWG Accountability, but for
the CWG. Where they of course have not addressed.

The accountability of the IANA Function Manager (currently ICANN) rests

squarely with the CCWG Accountability. The only issue is whether this is an
issue that must be in place before the transition (which it obviously is) or
whether it can wait until after the transition (which it obviously can not).

I have given up long ago wondering why gNSO representatives do not want

this issue addressed. But it is predominantly a ccTLD issue, anyway.

But I would like to look at being singled out as the lone dissenter.

I could to point out to the gentleman representing Verisign's interests,

that objections to the process have been voiced by other appointed members
to the CCWG Accountability, though to a varying degree of intensity, but
that would spoil the fun.

Indeed I have not apologized for refusing to attend 6 unnecessary

unconstructive logorrhea sessions against which I have objected, do object
and will continue to object.

I for one am not employed by a huge Corporation (to ensure their goals

are achieved), I actually have to work for a living. And, I most certainly
do not carry risk insurance when I attend F2F meetings.

That said, I have never suggested any conspiracy. I am just a somewhat

experienced ccTLD Manager, and in 24 years uninterrupted service I have seen
enough revocations to last me a life time. And we are not addressing this,
the IANA Function Manager's accountability, and we are not even questioning
whether any of this even has a leg to stand on.

I appreciate any advice I can get, but as I have written in the first

week of this sordid mess, I say what I mean and I mean what I say. And that
means I post whatever I want.

And I would challenge anyone to prove I have ulterior motives.

el

--

Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini

On Apr 23, 2015, at 19:54, Drazek, Keith <kdrazek@verisign.com> wrote:

Dear Co-Chairs,

Am I not remembering correctly that the question posed by our colleague

was previously determined to be out of scope for this CCWG? I believe I saw
an email on 15 April to that effect. I also don't believe I've seen anyone
else support the request, and certainly not prioritize it for WS1. Frankly,
it appears to be more of a CWG and not a CCWG issue, if it's a WG issue at
all.

If my above recollection is accurate, I respectfully suggest the

Co-Chairs advise our colleague that continued and repeated interventions on
this subject are not constructive and are becoming a distraction from the
otherwise good work of the CCWG.

Further, repeated objections to the pace and intensity of our work are

not necessary. The objection has been noted more than once. Yes...we have
noted our colleague is objecting to the frequency and intensity of work
sessions and therefore electing to not participate. He is not apologizing
for his inability to attend our work sessions. Noted.

Finally, our colleague's repeated references to alleged conspiracies and

consistently negative perspectives concerning our bottom-up, community-based
process are, in my view, inconsistent with the collegial and constructive
efforts of the CCWG as a whole as exhibited by every other member,
participant and observer. Frankly, I feel these suggestions are approaching
an insult to our multi-stakeholder process and to the dedication and hard
work of the rest of us.

I'm not sure anything can be done about this, but I wanted to express my

views through the Co-Chairs...since it is never wrong to do so.

Thanks and regards,

Keith

Sent from my iPhone

On Apr 23, 2015, at 1:54 AM, Dr Eberhard W Lisse <el@lisse.na> wrote:

Dear Co-Chairs,

why is every question, no matter how trivial, assigned, but the

fundamental one(s), namely whether the USG in fact has any claim to

the root and how this would affect the Transition, if any, and

(indvidual) ccTLD Managers (in chronological batches), is not?

It's not only a rhetorical question. Though, I have an idea, which

I had voiced before the start of the actual work of the CCWG to

some colleagues, due to past experiences.

Please have a response ready in time so I can include it into my

minority viewpoints that you will have to attach the the Request

for Comments.

greetings, el

--

Dr. Eberhard W. Lisse \ / Obstetrician & Gynaecologist (Saar)

el@lisse.NA / * | Telephone: +264 81 124 6733 (cell)

PO Box 8421 \ /

Bachbrecht, Namibia ;____/

_______________________________________________

Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list

Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org

https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-communit

y

_______________________________________________

Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list

Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org

https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

_______________________________________________

Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list

Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org

https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community