Bruce, would you be willing to share your "understanding" why you are seeking to introduce ICP-1 into Garnishee-Appellee's Unopposed Motion for Leave to File a Supplemental Appendix (USCA Case #14-7193 Document #1573369) while at the same time my understanding is that you agreed with ICP-1 being archived (as not ever having been policy)? Who are you misleading, the Appeals Court or the ccNSO? And before you reply I really would appreciate, very much, if you considered the accountability implications of your reply thoroughly. As in if you were testifying under oath, like. greetings, el -- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini -- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini
On 20 Sep 2015, at 08:26, Dr Eberhard W Lisse <epilisse@gmail.com> wrote:
Bruce,
the way I understand it ICANN was uncooperative with the panel and then complied with the outcome of the IRP.
el
-- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini
On 20 Sep 2015, at 01:37, Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au> wrote:
Hello Eberhard,
in the .AFRICA case at least (and I don't remember the older ones well) ICANN was not the model for cooperation, was it now?
Well as I understand it - the two sides put forward their case, and the complainant won the case.
The ICANN Board then complied with the outcome of the IRP.
Regards, Bruce Tonkin