ISTACC call 2015-04-15
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Dear Co-Chairs, we had us a very good ISTACC call today and I raised my current two issues there, the breakneck pace and the IANA Function Manager accountability. For the latter, from our charter (the third sentence, the others provided for context): This process on Enhancing ICANN Accountability is taking place alongside a parallel and related process on the transition of the stewardship of the IANA functions through the CWG to Develop an IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal on Naming Related Functions (hereinafter CWG-Stewardship). The CWG-Stewardship’s scope is focused on the arrangements required for the continuance of IANA functions in an accountable and widely accepted manner after the expiry of the IANA Functions Contract. Accountability for the administration of the IANA functions (i.e., implementation and operational accountability) is not within the scope of the CCWG-Accountability as it is being dealt with by the CWG-Stewardship. Nevertheless, the two processes are interrelated and interdependent and should appropriately coordinate their work. Your Co-Chair Mathieu stated that he believes the CCWG can not or should not look at IANA related Accountability (or words to that effect, please correct me until we have the transcript) whereas I believe that the operative word here is the "administration" of the functions, not the functions themselves and in particular the decision making process of the Board. Never mind that I can not recall any debate on this issue in the plenum. I read that as we do not look at the "internal" IANA operations, ie how they do things. For example, one major issue of contention is or has been response time to requests, which as operational issue should be addressed by the CWG. Or my allegation of IANA staff leaning on incumbent or prospective ccTLD Managers or the Contacts. That would also be operational. But how the IANA Function Manager (ICANN at present) makes the actual decisions is most certainly within our scope and we need to address this. And I find that starting at the beginning helps. Hence my repeated request for a look at the (legal) foundation as to how a Californian corporation has been, is and will be empowered to make decisions that affect third parties, such as the ccTLDs, but not necessarily only them. The failure by the co-chairs to take this up or even to respond, borders on the deliberate. It's a bit difficult to address the Co-Chairs "through the chair", by the way :-)-O And, finally, it appears Rod Chehade has apologized, but I really would like to read the transcript of Dave Conrad's presentation he referred to so eloquently. I will liaise with CWG staff to find it. greetings, el -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iQIVAwUBVS7bDJcFHaN5RT+rAQLorQ/9EnLCX2OEiSWDzfrho1KSAm6a4W7cZVNy 0ohQcz7/eXX6IFFlcb0HFDYMINKxrJIbJ8OSQ946RbC1kSgigLxE7YFjwJcF7swk DQt+ohLsCE9BoxJ0Hdx81v9XDugQU3iZ1QQAbqdN9M203kSWk4PGvnBfIC7G0waN FvQOOR9d0FuzTQ1/g6Mlu6wzl01mwcM65n7Ys0ildAsyQ6iBNzR//5XisQ7x6R7K V+5bH6cXWsdnVcqEJ2X7jIfZV/fPQZJCr9dBBiiPGhVNhaevafRmHJP8hYBA3iqv fDWo84IpL4JBod5rvbLN0iTWT+EkJQJ/Fgn4zPPwpTjrxgvpiMGihbx1wjYWvv3O KwgJDNoK7RjrSjSyNS7blTPfdb7VmIXJlYA9BT4WLBNJJ/FNYOiTRMjHOHXhvS46 GDGcnVV56aYyOfYjd4XHrAFTuxql6R/QSnyVe8g5l9/b7fHUi9cmvwcOr1FP4Vfr wEKYRQq/4HSDnIsE2RVuLVMMlvb0h5X1BEzTtCOfcTdpo4wVd8hcOA0KWvIj7pUv GspPykk3nRycbg0JOP0/et+Sc6BZedPiXuFibLPqJzQrVI/B7K5peo5AIv7YMCk5 5g0rsqUm8CCEVDwGYxiMlTV92myD0Iv6Pc5SEduvuxUkDntWXRKLmF3nL6wVe8lP IYVDdnvgOug= =hGTx -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Dear Eberhard, The question on the foundation of the USG to manage the root zone was put for consideration of the legal Subteam on its call of April 8 (which I didn’t attend). Attached is thePDF of the call’s transcript and on page 26 you will be able to see that the question was considered to be out of scope from our working group as it was considered that it not only isn’t a WS1 matter but also not considered as an accountability related topic. Best regards, León
El 15/04/2015, a las 16:41, Dr Eberhard W Lisse <el@lisse.na> escribió:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Dear Co-Chairs,
we had us a very good ISTACC call today and I raised my current two issues there, the breakneck pace and the IANA Function Manager accountability.
For the latter, from our charter (the third sentence, the others provided for context):
This process on Enhancing ICANN Accountability is taking place alongside a parallel and related process on the transition of the stewardship of the IANA functions through the CWG to Develop an IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal on Naming Related Functions (hereinafter CWG-Stewardship).
The CWG-Stewardship’s scope is focused on the arrangements required for the continuance of IANA functions in an accountable and widely accepted manner after the expiry of the IANA Functions Contract.
Accountability for the administration of the IANA functions (i.e., implementation and operational accountability) is not within the scope of the CCWG-Accountability as it is being dealt with by the CWG-Stewardship.
Nevertheless, the two processes are interrelated and interdependent and should appropriately coordinate their work.
Your Co-Chair Mathieu stated that he believes the CCWG can not or should not look at IANA related Accountability (or words to that effect, please correct me until we have the transcript) whereas I believe that the operative word here is the "administration" of the functions, not the functions themselves and in particular the decision making process of the Board. Never mind that I can not recall any debate on this issue in the plenum.
I read that as we do not look at the "internal" IANA operations, ie how they do things. For example, one major issue of contention is or has been response time to requests, which as operational issue should be addressed by the CWG. Or my allegation of IANA staff leaning on incumbent or prospective ccTLD Managers or the Contacts. That would also be operational.
But how the IANA Function Manager (ICANN at present) makes the actual decisions is most certainly within our scope and we need to address this.
And I find that starting at the beginning helps.
Hence my repeated request for a look at the (legal) foundation as to how a Californian corporation has been, is and will be empowered to make decisions that affect third parties, such as the ccTLDs, but not necessarily only them.
The failure by the co-chairs to take this up or even to respond, borders on the deliberate.
It's a bit difficult to address the Co-Chairs "through the chair", by the way :-)-O
And, finally, it appears Rod Chehade has apologized, but I really would like to read the transcript of Dave Conrad's presentation he referred to so eloquently.
I will liaise with CWG staff to find it.
greetings, el -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/
iQIVAwUBVS7bDJcFHaN5RT+rAQLorQ/9EnLCX2OEiSWDzfrho1KSAm6a4W7cZVNy 0ohQcz7/eXX6IFFlcb0HFDYMINKxrJIbJ8OSQ946RbC1kSgigLxE7YFjwJcF7swk DQt+ohLsCE9BoxJ0Hdx81v9XDugQU3iZ1QQAbqdN9M203kSWk4PGvnBfIC7G0waN FvQOOR9d0FuzTQ1/g6Mlu6wzl01mwcM65n7Ys0ildAsyQ6iBNzR//5XisQ7x6R7K V+5bH6cXWsdnVcqEJ2X7jIfZV/fPQZJCr9dBBiiPGhVNhaevafRmHJP8hYBA3iqv fDWo84IpL4JBod5rvbLN0iTWT+EkJQJ/Fgn4zPPwpTjrxgvpiMGihbx1wjYWvv3O KwgJDNoK7RjrSjSyNS7blTPfdb7VmIXJlYA9BT4WLBNJJ/FNYOiTRMjHOHXhvS46 GDGcnVV56aYyOfYjd4XHrAFTuxql6R/QSnyVe8g5l9/b7fHUi9cmvwcOr1FP4Vfr wEKYRQq/4HSDnIsE2RVuLVMMlvb0h5X1BEzTtCOfcTdpo4wVd8hcOA0KWvIj7pUv GspPykk3nRycbg0JOP0/et+Sc6BZedPiXuFibLPqJzQrVI/B7K5peo5AIv7YMCk5 5g0rsqUm8CCEVDwGYxiMlTV92myD0Iv6Pc5SEduvuxUkDntWXRKLmF3nL6wVe8lP IYVDdnvgOug= =hGTx -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Dear Co-Chairs, I read page 26 as Mr Shatan stating (who is not an appointed member of any SO/AC nevermind ccNSO, he's just the hired gund to take .SUCKS down) did not wish to deal with it, that he did not recall it had even been "promised" to be investigated (though since he can't be bothered to spell my name right, in spite of having numerous email exchanges with me, so I doubt he even looked), and Mr McAuley preferring to deal with other issues first. There is no attendance list attached, so I don't even know who participated, but since when does a sub-team make substantive decisions? Never mind its composition? This is THE fundamental question upon which the only topic of relevance for ccTLDs rests and as per my below email it most certainly is within scope. Hence, I reiterate my DEMAND that this topic be referred for legal research. el On 2015-04-16 04:41 , León Felipe Sánchez Ambía wrote:
Dear Eberhard,
The question on the foundation of the USG to manage the root zone was put for consideration of the legal Subteam on its call of April 8 (which I didn’t attend).
Attached is thePDF of the call’s transcript and on page 26 you will be able to see that the question was considered to be out of scope from our working group as it was considered that it not only isn’t a WS1 matter but also not considered as an accountability related topic.
Best regards,
León
El 15/04/2015, a las 16:41, Dr Eberhard W Lisse <el@lisse.na> escribió:
Dear Co-Chairs,
we had us a very good ISTACC call today and I raised my current two issues there, the breakneck pace and the IANA Function Manager accountability.
For the latter, from our charter (the third sentence, the others provided for context):
This process on Enhancing ICANN Accountability is taking place alongside a parallel and related process on the transition of the stewardship of the IANA functions through the CWG to Develop an IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal on Naming Related Functions (hereinafter CWG-Stewardship).
The CWG-Stewardship’s scope is focused on the arrangements required for the continuance of IANA functions in an accountable and widely accepted manner after the expiry of the IANA Functions Contract.
Accountability for the administration of the IANA functions (i.e., implementation and operational accountability) is not within the scope of the CCWG-Accountability as it is being dealt with by the CWG-Stewardship.
Nevertheless, the two processes are interrelated and interdependent and should appropriately coordinate their work.
Your Co-Chair Mathieu stated that he believes the CCWG can not or should not look at IANA related Accountability (or words to that effect, please correct me until we have the transcript) whereas I believe that the operative word here is the "administration" of the functions, not the functions themselves and in particular the decision making process of the Board. Never mind that I can not recall any debate on this issue in the plenum.
I read that as we do not look at the "internal" IANA operations, ie how they do things. For example, one major issue of contention is or has been response time to requests, which as operational issue should be addressed by the CWG. Or my allegation of IANA staff leaning on incumbent or prospective ccTLD Managers or the Contacts. That would also be operational.
But how the IANA Function Manager (ICANN at present) makes the actual decisions is most certainly within our scope and we need to address this.
And I find that starting at the beginning helps.
Hence my repeated request for a look at the (legal) foundation as to how a Californian corporation has been, is and will be empowered to make decisions that affect third parties, such as the ccTLDs, but not necessarily only them.
The failure by the co-chairs to take this up or even to respond, borders on the deliberate.
It's a bit difficult to address the Co-Chairs "through the chair", by the way :-)-O
And, finally, it appears Rod Chehade has apologized, but I really would like to read the transcript of Dave Conrad's presentation he referred to so eloquently.
I will liaise with CWG staff to find it.
greetings, el
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Dr. Eberhard W. Lisse \ / Obstetrician & Gynaecologist (Saar) el@lisse.NA / * | Telephone: +264 81 124 6733 (cell) PO Box 8421 \ / Bachbrecht, Namibia ;____/ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org iQIVAwUBVS9s3JcFHaN5RT+rAQJJzw//d/NhDnEBxB8L6MLm+niWKjyibNzTz3Mq H2YLtfZP69e7ISPDdDb9Lkiucjm53L4RoVFrmTa1NJLpE5w1gVW26m/3s8FWGfiS r1B05gm1psblhBXVZ5I6fSAcBs0uTX/uww6DSwrLOZMvXfLffb0PR52p8y4v4QTe P+khUOTD3ryGHy2C/EvsdGvfKYKhZIu1E78OaxMuR3YskmBVIvOlBx1aTrVay2rz 6OSLwPSB22iJ3gaTgSqen7qP8cLBVq1juGhqS/ALRCrSUdqX7tHB2pCR0ChwIgH4 G76dNvzChPAMWvXwq6n2GY+DJK639Oiia/U+/OqaedPlQ3FYL1LOZI0sVAYYv8wX j1PMcBDLbFjQYRPhbUVx4ElM/wcAdrPg8ICo5jRVaNQa/WmLSH0TZqs9fe04hx2s X1iq4WcuYvnKg2XkMhxVcfPXTA/H4FkNvDQPWC7W38AJ0+F2GeYz+12kxOJht1MO B9+2qksjOFUykAKjjW94IXf1ovoT1UoBVShOUOQDVTe8/G3ZAjzGl/2wwWbpfqys rtedE9jbrx3bZ+Acy/3HvDnK6migNC3mTqYs9+kSU220xtfMw4WVAXtxLXKkLRYL vq0NGPevQ3zhM2JJXd8TKfOy7lGaSstaZxWcj8AIJvF3E5a+PNmWzjaSdexT084u PcQwru0jiA8= =KTOs -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
And just for the record, I KNOW it is a transcript, though I am sure the chair would have corrected if proofreading showed an 'h' missing from his surname. el On 2015-04-16 09:03, Dr Eberhard W Lisse wrote:
Dear Co-Chairs,
I read page 26 as Mr Shatan stating (who is not an appointed member of any SO/AC nevermind ccNSO, he's just the hired gund to take .SUCKS down) did not wish to deal with it, that he did not recall it had even been "promised" to be investigated (though since he can't be bothered to spell my name right, in spite of having numerous email exchanges with me, so I doubt he even looked), and Mr McAuley preferring to deal with other issues first.
There is no attendance list attached, so I don't even know who participated, but since when does a sub-team make substantive decisions? Never mind its composition?
This is THE fundamental question upon which the only topic of relevance for ccTLDs rests and as per my below email it most certainly is within scope.
Hence, I reiterate my DEMAND that this topic be referred for legal research.
el
On 2015-04-16 04:41 , León Felipe Sánchez Ambía wrote:
Dear Eberhard,
The question on the foundation of the USG to manage the root zone was put for consideration of the legal Subteam on its call of April 8 (which I didn’t attend).
Attached is thePDF of the call’s transcript and on page 26 you will be able to see that the question was considered to be out of scope from our working group as it was considered that it not only isn’t a WS1 matter but also not considered as an accountability related topic.
Best regards,
León
El 15/04/2015, a las 16:41, Dr Eberhard W Lisse <el@lisse.na> escribió:
Dear Co-Chairs,
we had us a very good ISTACC call today and I raised my current two issues there, the breakneck pace and the IANA Function Manager accountability.
For the latter, from our charter (the third sentence, the others provided for context):
This process on Enhancing ICANN Accountability is taking place alongside a parallel and related process on the transition of the stewardship of the IANA functions through the CWG to Develop an IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal on Naming Related Functions (hereinafter CWG-Stewardship).
The CWG-Stewardship’s scope is focused on the arrangements required for the continuance of IANA functions in an accountable and widely accepted manner after the expiry of the IANA Functions Contract.
Accountability for the administration of the IANA functions (i.e., implementation and operational accountability) is not within the scope of the CCWG-Accountability as it is being dealt with by the CWG-Stewardship.
Nevertheless, the two processes are interrelated and interdependent and should appropriately coordinate their work.
Your Co-Chair Mathieu stated that he believes the CCWG can not or should not look at IANA related Accountability (or words to that effect, please correct me until we have the transcript) whereas I believe that the operative word here is the "administration" of the functions, not the functions themselves and in particular the decision making process of the Board. Never mind that I can not recall any debate on this issue in the plenum.
I read that as we do not look at the "internal" IANA operations, ie how they do things. For example, one major issue of contention is or has been response time to requests, which as operational issue should be addressed by the CWG. Or my allegation of IANA staff leaning on incumbent or prospective ccTLD Managers or the Contacts. That would also be operational.
But how the IANA Function Manager (ICANN at present) makes the actual decisions is most certainly within our scope and we need to address this.
And I find that starting at the beginning helps.
Hence my repeated request for a look at the (legal) foundation as to how a Californian corporation has been, is and will be empowered to make decisions that affect third parties, such as the ccTLDs, but not necessarily only them.
The failure by the co-chairs to take this up or even to respond, borders on the deliberate.
It's a bit difficult to address the Co-Chairs "through the chair", by the way :-)-O
And, finally, it appears Rod Chehade has apologized, but I really would like to read the transcript of Dave Conrad's presentation he referred to so eloquently.
I will liaise with CWG staff to find it.
greetings, el
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
-- Dr. Eberhard W. Lisse 4-5, St Annes Walk <Directors@omadhina.net> Alderney, Guernsey, GY9 3JZ Omadhina Internet Services Ltd British Channel Islands
Can you please help me with the acronym ISTACC - but don't bother the co-chairs to let them answer Best regards Wolf-Ulrich Knoben -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- From: Dr Eberhard W Lisse Sent: Thursday, April 16, 2015 10:03 AM To: accountability-cross-community@icann.org Cc: Lisse Eberhard Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] ISTACC call 2015-04-15 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Dear Co-Chairs, I read page 26 as Mr Shatan stating (who is not an appointed member of any SO/AC nevermind ccNSO, he's just the hired gund to take .SUCKS down) did not wish to deal with it, that he did not recall it had even been "promised" to be investigated (though since he can't be bothered to spell my name right, in spite of having numerous email exchanges with me, so I doubt he even looked), and Mr McAuley preferring to deal with other issues first. There is no attendance list attached, so I don't even know who participated, but since when does a sub-team make substantive decisions? Never mind its composition? This is THE fundamental question upon which the only topic of relevance for ccTLDs rests and as per my below email it most certainly is within scope. Hence, I reiterate my DEMAND that this topic be referred for legal research. el On 2015-04-16 04:41 , León Felipe Sánchez Ambía wrote:
Dear Eberhard,
The question on the foundation of the USG to manage the root zone was put for consideration of the legal Subteam on its call of April 8 (which I didn’t attend).
Attached is thePDF of the call’s transcript and on page 26 you will be able to see that the question was considered to be out of scope from our working group as it was considered that it not only isn’t a WS1 matter but also not considered as an accountability related topic.
Best regards,
León
El 15/04/2015, a las 16:41, Dr Eberhard W Lisse <el@lisse.na> escribió:
Dear Co-Chairs,
we had us a very good ISTACC call today and I raised my current two issues there, the breakneck pace and the IANA Function Manager accountability.
For the latter, from our charter (the third sentence, the others provided for context):
This process on Enhancing ICANN Accountability is taking place alongside a parallel and related process on the transition of the stewardship of the IANA functions through the CWG to Develop an IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal on Naming Related Functions (hereinafter CWG-Stewardship).
The CWG-Stewardship’s scope is focused on the arrangements required for the continuance of IANA functions in an accountable and widely accepted manner after the expiry of the IANA Functions Contract.
Accountability for the administration of the IANA functions (i.e., implementation and operational accountability) is not within the scope of the CCWG-Accountability as it is being dealt with by the CWG-Stewardship.
Nevertheless, the two processes are interrelated and interdependent and should appropriately coordinate their work.
Your Co-Chair Mathieu stated that he believes the CCWG can not or should not look at IANA related Accountability (or words to that effect, please correct me until we have the transcript) whereas I believe that the operative word here is the "administration" of the functions, not the functions themselves and in particular the decision making process of the Board. Never mind that I can not recall any debate on this issue in the plenum.
I read that as we do not look at the "internal" IANA operations, ie how they do things. For example, one major issue of contention is or has been response time to requests, which as operational issue should be addressed by the CWG. Or my allegation of IANA staff leaning on incumbent or prospective ccTLD Managers or the Contacts. That would also be operational.
But how the IANA Function Manager (ICANN at present) makes the actual decisions is most certainly within our scope and we need to address this.
And I find that starting at the beginning helps.
Hence my repeated request for a look at the (legal) foundation as to how a Californian corporation has been, is and will be empowered to make decisions that affect third parties, such as the ccTLDs, but not necessarily only them.
The failure by the co-chairs to take this up or even to respond, borders on the deliberate.
It's a bit difficult to address the Co-Chairs "through the chair", by the way :-)-O
And, finally, it appears Rod Chehade has apologized, but I really would like to read the transcript of Dave Conrad's presentation he referred to so eloquently.
I will liaise with CWG staff to find it.
greetings, el
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Dr. Eberhard W. Lisse \ / Obstetrician & Gynaecologist (Saar) el@lisse.NA / * | Telephone: +264 81 124 6733 (cell) PO Box 8421 \ / Bachbrecht, Namibia ;____/ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org iQIVAwUBVS9s3JcFHaN5RT+rAQJJzw//d/NhDnEBxB8L6MLm+niWKjyibNzTz3Mq H2YLtfZP69e7ISPDdDb9Lkiucjm53L4RoVFrmTa1NJLpE5w1gVW26m/3s8FWGfiS r1B05gm1psblhBXVZ5I6fSAcBs0uTX/uww6DSwrLOZMvXfLffb0PR52p8y4v4QTe P+khUOTD3ryGHy2C/EvsdGvfKYKhZIu1E78OaxMuR3YskmBVIvOlBx1aTrVay2rz 6OSLwPSB22iJ3gaTgSqen7qP8cLBVq1juGhqS/ALRCrSUdqX7tHB2pCR0ChwIgH4 G76dNvzChPAMWvXwq6n2GY+DJK639Oiia/U+/OqaedPlQ3FYL1LOZI0sVAYYv8wX j1PMcBDLbFjQYRPhbUVx4ElM/wcAdrPg8ICo5jRVaNQa/WmLSH0TZqs9fe04hx2s X1iq4WcuYvnKg2XkMhxVcfPXTA/H4FkNvDQPWC7W38AJ0+F2GeYz+12kxOJht1MO B9+2qksjOFUykAKjjW94IXf1ovoT1UoBVShOUOQDVTe8/G3ZAjzGl/2wwWbpfqys rtedE9jbrx3bZ+Acy/3HvDnK6migNC3mTqYs9+kSU220xtfMw4WVAXtxLXKkLRYL vq0NGPevQ3zhM2JJXd8TKfOy7lGaSstaZxWcj8AIJvF3E5a+PNmWzjaSdexT084u PcQwru0jiA8= =KTOs -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 Dear Co-Chairs, Google is Wolf-Ulrich's friend :-)-O http://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/istacc.htm IANA Stewardship Transition and Accountability Coordination Committee (ISTACC) The mission of the ccNSO IANA Stewardship Transition and Accountability Coordination Committee (ISTACC) is to: Coordinate the ccNSO and broader ccTLD efforts to participate in and provide timely input into the IANA Stewardship Transition Process and Enhancing ICANN's Accountability Process, Coordinate efforts to reaching out and engaging the broader ccTLD community in the aforementioned processes, and finally, Coordinate the interrelation between the processes from a ccNSO and broader ccTLD perspective. Previous calls have been cancelled more often than not, last night's was reasonably lively :-)-O el On 2015-04-16 11:44, WUKnoben wrote:
Can you please help me with the acronym ISTACC - but don't bother the co-chairs to let them answer
Best regards
Wolf-Ulrich Knoben [...]
Dr. Eberhard W. Lisse \ / Obstetrician & Gynaecologist (Saar) el@lisse.NA / * | Telephone: +264 81 124 6733 (cell) PO Box 8421 \ / Bachbrecht, Namibia ;____/ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJVL5eeAAoJEJcFHaN5RT+rM4YP/31KQJb4mSQBdrdRzI0wPH/p 5PqIIx6oKsq3vDKK7ZZ+JbP2hrspdYhNd/NaWCc96xsu/0I1iPy6zY84he/RC5BQ wuv6UPr6xFI3OWbqB+A9w8LJ3ZmGMP449nQj8nz3XzfLhVhvmBH+ZgUHOOTbXxGj C3tpO9sLXeO+0D8xi3DzNc1Ve7RATH1xmQ1NtFHTiijldBRxPqUf/zW6aY565zBH FA3hRVPPwbIF1CyrGBbwDqaK/qCG8I+JYsuX4KV34rCovM0TaS2g4fZi9Np7Am1T 8pydxRCw0uSbci1Kn35WY/rdM484/uKbm2iqRQigBjlYcB666arMXASBD1WyWWwJ EsMkbCu9wJhqgITks5bEU01wp1hheRDET+3LrfIgAbIgu9tIf5Qzch9cftbHYGN4 ROEmD6f0AvnK4l2O2YZwiiITZ+sr5AWZC52XihTDYAbpNGXalDxm36Eo+Jo+ZxhR CxO+NdgVjqI1Md0aojgLVMEgkxmqCv7ard3MjLELYyC3njQ8zbgDWD9/H7dj32oV KhpSNzK1X03PIyDCZkZX+c8yPbqmMerwouIevWNpGE7shrhNs5W/FqtGNgwKUIRG v3hMtxku6TgoK+NdVFSvw+nfaq2MAoA1BeKw+wbljWyM1bnnMnEmfoBoqJT2SNrY OJ3Hm0DDyiSULvNd/8zd =A/O1 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Thanks a lot for the explanation - to the co-chairs... Best regards Wolf-Ulrich -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- From: Dr Eberhard Lisse Sent: Thursday, April 16, 2015 1:06 PM Cc: directors@omadhina.net ; accountability-cross-community@icann.org Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] ISTACC call 2015-04-15 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 Dear Co-Chairs, Google is Wolf-Ulrich's friend :-)-O http://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/istacc.htm IANA Stewardship Transition and Accountability Coordination Committee (ISTACC) The mission of the ccNSO IANA Stewardship Transition and Accountability Coordination Committee (ISTACC) is to: Coordinate the ccNSO and broader ccTLD efforts to participate in and provide timely input into the IANA Stewardship Transition Process and Enhancing ICANN's Accountability Process, Coordinate efforts to reaching out and engaging the broader ccTLD community in the aforementioned processes, and finally, Coordinate the interrelation between the processes from a ccNSO and broader ccTLD perspective. Previous calls have been cancelled more often than not, last night's was reasonably lively :-)-O el On 2015-04-16 11:44, WUKnoben wrote:
Can you please help me with the acronym ISTACC - but don't bother the co-chairs to let them answer
Best regards
Wolf-Ulrich Knoben [...]
Dr. Eberhard W. Lisse \ / Obstetrician & Gynaecologist (Saar) el@lisse.NA / * | Telephone: +264 81 124 6733 (cell) PO Box 8421 \ / Bachbrecht, Namibia ;____/ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJVL5eeAAoJEJcFHaN5RT+rM4YP/31KQJb4mSQBdrdRzI0wPH/p 5PqIIx6oKsq3vDKK7ZZ+JbP2hrspdYhNd/NaWCc96xsu/0I1iPy6zY84he/RC5BQ wuv6UPr6xFI3OWbqB+A9w8LJ3ZmGMP449nQj8nz3XzfLhVhvmBH+ZgUHOOTbXxGj C3tpO9sLXeO+0D8xi3DzNc1Ve7RATH1xmQ1NtFHTiijldBRxPqUf/zW6aY565zBH FA3hRVPPwbIF1CyrGBbwDqaK/qCG8I+JYsuX4KV34rCovM0TaS2g4fZi9Np7Am1T 8pydxRCw0uSbci1Kn35WY/rdM484/uKbm2iqRQigBjlYcB666arMXASBD1WyWWwJ EsMkbCu9wJhqgITks5bEU01wp1hheRDET+3LrfIgAbIgu9tIf5Qzch9cftbHYGN4 ROEmD6f0AvnK4l2O2YZwiiITZ+sr5AWZC52XihTDYAbpNGXalDxm36Eo+Jo+ZxhR CxO+NdgVjqI1Md0aojgLVMEgkxmqCv7ard3MjLELYyC3njQ8zbgDWD9/H7dj32oV KhpSNzK1X03PIyDCZkZX+c8yPbqmMerwouIevWNpGE7shrhNs5W/FqtGNgwKUIRG v3hMtxku6TgoK+NdVFSvw+nfaq2MAoA1BeKw+wbljWyM1bnnMnEmfoBoqJT2SNrY OJ3Hm0DDyiSULvNd/8zd =A/O1 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Dear Eberhard, First, please feel free to address us directly and by our first names, let's not add any difficulty here. Since our call on wednesday, the underlying concern that you raise has become clearer to me, and your email below provides further context. This is very helpful. The question you raise in the note below is whether the CCWG scope includes accountability mechanisms related to (quoting your message) "how the IANA Function Manager (ICANN at present) makes the actual decisions". Our group has been very careful so far not to discuss accountability mechanisms with respect to items that are out of the scope of our charter. You will remember that, in our correspondence with the CWG, we carefully phrased that the review and redress mechanisms would only be applicable „to the extent“ ICANN makes decisions regarding ccTLDs. That would not encompass questions of delegation and redelegations. I have expressed my view as a ccTLD manager yesterday during our ccTLD call, but as co-chair, I am perfectly ok with asking other members of the CCWG to provide their own input, as to whether or not this item should be considered in our scope. Best regards, Mathieu Le 15/04/2015 23:41, Dr Eberhard W Lisse a écrit :
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Dear Co-Chairs,
we had us a very good ISTACC call today and I raised my current two issues there, the breakneck pace and the IANA Function Manager accountability.
For the latter, from our charter (the third sentence, the others provided for context):
This process on Enhancing ICANN Accountability is taking place alongside a parallel and related process on the transition of the stewardship of the IANA functions through the CWG to Develop an IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal on Naming Related Functions (hereinafter CWG-Stewardship).
The CWG-Stewardship’s scope is focused on the arrangements required for the continuance of IANA functions in an accountable and widely accepted manner after the expiry of the IANA Functions Contract.
Accountability for the administration of the IANA functions (i.e., implementation and operational accountability) is not within the scope of the CCWG-Accountability as it is being dealt with by the CWG-Stewardship.
Nevertheless, the two processes are interrelated and interdependent and should appropriately coordinate their work.
Your Co-Chair Mathieu stated that he believes the CCWG can not or should not look at IANA related Accountability (or words to that effect, please correct me until we have the transcript) whereas I believe that the operative word here is the "administration" of the functions, not the functions themselves and in particular the decision making process of the Board. Never mind that I can not recall any debate on this issue in the plenum.
I read that as we do not look at the "internal" IANA operations, ie how they do things. For example, one major issue of contention is or has been response time to requests, which as operational issue should be addressed by the CWG. Or my allegation of IANA staff leaning on incumbent or prospective ccTLD Managers or the Contacts. That would also be operational.
But how the IANA Function Manager (ICANN at present) makes the actual decisions is most certainly within our scope and we need to address this.
And I find that starting at the beginning helps.
Hence my repeated request for a look at the (legal) foundation as to how a Californian corporation has been, is and will be empowered to make decisions that affect third parties, such as the ccTLDs, but not necessarily only them.
The failure by the co-chairs to take this up or even to respond, borders on the deliberate.
It's a bit difficult to address the Co-Chairs "through the chair", by the way :-)-O
And, finally, it appears Rod Chehade has apologized, but I really would like to read the transcript of Dave Conrad's presentation he referred to so eloquently.
I will liaise with CWG staff to find it.
greetings, el -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/
iQIVAwUBVS7bDJcFHaN5RT+rAQLorQ/9EnLCX2OEiSWDzfrho1KSAm6a4W7cZVNy 0ohQcz7/eXX6IFFlcb0HFDYMINKxrJIbJ8OSQ946RbC1kSgigLxE7YFjwJcF7swk DQt+ohLsCE9BoxJ0Hdx81v9XDugQU3iZ1QQAbqdN9M203kSWk4PGvnBfIC7G0waN FvQOOR9d0FuzTQ1/g6Mlu6wzl01mwcM65n7Ys0ildAsyQ6iBNzR//5XisQ7x6R7K V+5bH6cXWsdnVcqEJ2X7jIfZV/fPQZJCr9dBBiiPGhVNhaevafRmHJP8hYBA3iqv fDWo84IpL4JBod5rvbLN0iTWT+EkJQJ/Fgn4zPPwpTjrxgvpiMGihbx1wjYWvv3O KwgJDNoK7RjrSjSyNS7blTPfdb7VmIXJlYA9BT4WLBNJJ/FNYOiTRMjHOHXhvS46 GDGcnVV56aYyOfYjd4XHrAFTuxql6R/QSnyVe8g5l9/b7fHUi9cmvwcOr1FP4Vfr wEKYRQq/4HSDnIsE2RVuLVMMlvb0h5X1BEzTtCOfcTdpo4wVd8hcOA0KWvIj7pUv GspPykk3nRycbg0JOP0/et+Sc6BZedPiXuFibLPqJzQrVI/B7K5peo5AIv7YMCk5 5g0rsqUm8CCEVDwGYxiMlTV92myD0Iv6Pc5SEduvuxUkDntWXRKLmF3nL6wVe8lP IYVDdnvgOug= =hGTx -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
-- ***************************** Mathieu WEILL AFNIC - directeur général Tél: +33 1 39 30 83 06 mathieu.weill@afnic.fr Twitter : @mathieuweill *****************************
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 Dear Co-Chairs, one is NEVER wrong to go through the chair. I will address only a selected very few members, participants or observers CCWG-Accountability directly, and probably only off list. I also am totally dumbfounded how a ccNSO appointed Co-Chair would use incorrect terminology. It's Delegation, REVOCATION & TRANSFER (though the latter is actually a Delegation) and Retirement. If 20% of ccNSO appointed members of the CCWG (me) is adamant about something, it is not for a Participant, who is not an appointed Member, who is not even ccTLD, who is only in an acting capacity of a chair to a SubTeam to torpedo it. It most certainly is out of order for one Co-Chair to then convey that that's that. Whether it's intentional or not. It should be taken up, with haste. This is very clearly not an attempt at Developing Policy, which is as I stated very clearly in the ISTAC call, is for the ccNSO exclusively, as stated in the By-Laws. I have my own opinion about what that Policy should be and what I can do about it, but that's not the issue here. I plainly don't care any more about careful correspondence with CWG or ICG or whatever abbreviation is the order of the day. I care about the process that is being "followed" (as in railroaded) and the substance (as in superficial tinkering). The Charter is very clear. It is about accountability mechanisms that must be in place before the transition and about those that can be done after the transition. We REALLY need to find out, what the foundation is of what we are dealing with. Not only on a fundamental level, but also as a contingency. Maybe even a Stress Test (and as general, as unlawyer-like formulated as I can): ST 99: A ccTLD Manager succeeds in a US (Federal (Appeals) Court) with denying ICANN to interfere with (revoke) the ccTLD in question. Possible scenarios not out of the realm of the imaginable could be: - the Court ruling that the USG has had no claim to the root (hence ccTLDs); or - the Court ruling that the root database is an asset, Federal alienation procedures have not been followed (if any); or - the Court ruling that the CCTLD is some form of property and the attempted conversion was intentional, awarding (significant) punitive damages including lifting the corporate veil; or - the Court ruling that anti-trust or other legislation has been breached, that may result in criminal prosecutions or any or all of the above or others. Closing our eyes while rushing about about will not achieve anything. I am not saying I must get the result I want, even though of course I would like that as much as Belzegreg seems to for his agenda. Even though I don't get paid for standing up for the (smaller) ccTLDs and the principle (of Accountability and Transparency). But then maybe I am just doing what I was sent here to do. greetings, el On 2015-04-17 07:58, Mathieu Weill wrote:
Dear Eberhard,
First, please feel free to address us directly and by our first names, let's not add any difficulty here.
Since our call on wednesday, the underlying concern that you raise has become clearer to me, and your email below provides further context. This is very helpful.
The question you raise in the note below is whether the CCWG scope includes accountability mechanisms related to (quoting your message) "how the IANA Function Manager (ICANN at present) makes the actual decisions".
Our group has been very careful so far not to discuss accountability mechanisms with respect to items that are out of the scope of our charter. You will remember that, in our correspondence with the CWG, we carefully phrased that the review and redress mechanisms would only be applicable „to the extent“ ICANN makes decisions regarding ccTLDs. That would not encompass questions of delegation and redelegations.
I have expressed my view as a ccTLD manager yesterday during our ccTLD call, but as co-chair, I am perfectly ok with asking other members of the CCWG to provide their own input, as to whether or not this item should be considered in our scope.
Best regards, Mathieu [...] -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org
iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJVMNQsAAoJEJcFHaN5RT+rO2MP/jlsYlf0I7Ih3g8x2ZJJm2Du m5p9fGL3kFbM/AR2S6OFS9/Yo5EUjs6JMLaQy3YoanPc4gsB9jqDZ3/nxPuiXURp ASj5fquRsbr42rreurGQbne5s2cGhtfCaFh82qnDONPJ7pgPEzzG9JYnxjGXdS8o E18N0WGTVC8aKtRIQpQBU5y3Ehz+y0l3LDpaBWtsSd3lANKiIELBXnL6lmtOrnbE 6UOTxxnBvR/uFqizcJQu6eCfAnYmUKDhdHsQY3r+Jmodq4foNn9eLTpNNzLYLm0h q8kfHwktSKrnIdhYDN8S/mo+b2NitSxK26AdWI7jIha+0kOwvaoQXs12Wn06OpoJ uOxx5uYp77CzsMdN0qSrwhvkjPwanwf6PRiSDWyGYZg1tgdu3wBg0YywxOch1KMQ ez1rc0q01y4NAEwcwa63GkLmDcCmHLrNZpyNE1tQGooOHobjvceAO71tw/jSpjBn FKG7tMRGwnxXnxeLnr9shQZPYWzt3oBc52lRSa7tJakdEvzTQllj8ct3KUUvGQ7e jeqTBnoZmpM0TlxSs/K6bWgAl5ue9xKiANCiaMM3xNLNBvSTLs8UtPJl+PdxlHRA 9iqUHqxz7BAuofOR6mfR0sVKpITlwZj4YSAw9l33tmj8E/NZ/VPvy2b4LCspG3ke vox1owtrwW/B4mHr2HyS =fMEP -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Mathueu Thank you very much fir your kind and helpful reply to Dr. Pls advise if the issue if delegation and re delegation is outside the scope of CCWG then where thus important issue could be addressed. Di you also consider the issue of revocation as part if this package? Regards Kaviyss Sent from my iPhone
On 17 Apr 2015, at 08:58, Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr> wrote:
Dear Eberhard,
First, please feel free to address us directly and by our first names, let's not add any difficulty here.
Since our call on wednesday, the underlying concern that you raise has become clearer to me, and your email below provides further context. This is very helpful.
The question you raise in the note below is whether the CCWG scope includes accountability mechanisms related to (quoting your message) "how the IANA Function Manager (ICANN at present) makes the actual decisions".
Our group has been very careful so far not to discuss accountability mechanisms with respect to items that are out of the scope of our charter. You will remember that, in our correspondence with the CWG, we carefully phrased that the review and redress mechanisms would only be applicable „to the extent“ ICANN makes decisions regarding ccTLDs. That would not encompass questions of delegation and redelegations.
I have expressed my view as a ccTLD manager yesterday during our ccTLD call, but as co-chair, I am perfectly ok with asking other members of the CCWG to provide their own input, as to whether or not this item should be considered in our scope.
Best regards, Mathieu
Le 15/04/2015 23:41, Dr Eberhard W Lisse a écrit :
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Dear Co-Chairs,
we had us a very good ISTACC call today and I raised my current two issues there, the breakneck pace and the IANA Function Manager accountability.
For the latter, from our charter (the third sentence, the others provided for context):
This process on Enhancing ICANN Accountability is taking place alongside a parallel and related process on the transition of the stewardship of the IANA functions through the CWG to Develop an IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal on Naming Related Functions (hereinafter CWG-Stewardship).
The CWG-Stewardship’s scope is focused on the arrangements required for the continuance of IANA functions in an accountable and widely accepted manner after the expiry of the IANA Functions Contract.
Accountability for the administration of the IANA functions (i.e., implementation and operational accountability) is not within the scope of the CCWG-Accountability as it is being dealt with by the CWG-Stewardship.
Nevertheless, the two processes are interrelated and interdependent and should appropriately coordinate their work.
Your Co-Chair Mathieu stated that he believes the CCWG can not or should not look at IANA related Accountability (or words to that effect, please correct me until we have the transcript) whereas I believe that the operative word here is the "administration" of the functions, not the functions themselves and in particular the decision making process of the Board. Never mind that I can not recall any debate on this issue in the plenum.
I read that as we do not look at the "internal" IANA operations, ie how they do things. For example, one major issue of contention is or has been response time to requests, which as operational issue should be addressed by the CWG. Or my allegation of IANA staff leaning on incumbent or prospective ccTLD Managers or the Contacts. That would also be operational.
But how the IANA Function Manager (ICANN at present) makes the actual decisions is most certainly within our scope and we need to address this.
And I find that starting at the beginning helps.
Hence my repeated request for a look at the (legal) foundation as to how a Californian corporation has been, is and will be empowered to make decisions that affect third parties, such as the ccTLDs, but not necessarily only them.
The failure by the co-chairs to take this up or even to respond, borders on the deliberate.
It's a bit difficult to address the Co-Chairs "through the chair", by the way :-)-O
And, finally, it appears Rod Chehade has apologized, but I really would like to read the transcript of Dave Conrad's presentation he referred to so eloquently.
I will liaise with CWG staff to find it.
greetings, el -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/
iQIVAwUBVS7bDJcFHaN5RT+rAQLorQ/9EnLCX2OEiSWDzfrho1KSAm6a4W7cZVNy 0ohQcz7/eXX6IFFlcb0HFDYMINKxrJIbJ8OSQ946RbC1kSgigLxE7YFjwJcF7swk DQt+ohLsCE9BoxJ0Hdx81v9XDugQU3iZ1QQAbqdN9M203kSWk4PGvnBfIC7G0waN FvQOOR9d0FuzTQ1/g6Mlu6wzl01mwcM65n7Ys0ildAsyQ6iBNzR//5XisQ7x6R7K V+5bH6cXWsdnVcqEJ2X7jIfZV/fPQZJCr9dBBiiPGhVNhaevafRmHJP8hYBA3iqv fDWo84IpL4JBod5rvbLN0iTWT+EkJQJ/Fgn4zPPwpTjrxgvpiMGihbx1wjYWvv3O KwgJDNoK7RjrSjSyNS7blTPfdb7VmIXJlYA9BT4WLBNJJ/FNYOiTRMjHOHXhvS46 GDGcnVV56aYyOfYjd4XHrAFTuxql6R/QSnyVe8g5l9/b7fHUi9cmvwcOr1FP4Vfr wEKYRQq/4HSDnIsE2RVuLVMMlvb0h5X1BEzTtCOfcTdpo4wVd8hcOA0KWvIj7pUv GspPykk3nRycbg0JOP0/et+Sc6BZedPiXuFibLPqJzQrVI/B7K5peo5AIv7YMCk5 5g0rsqUm8CCEVDwGYxiMlTV92myD0Iv6Pc5SEduvuxUkDntWXRKLmF3nL6wVe8lP IYVDdnvgOug= =hGTx -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
-- ***************************** Mathieu WEILL AFNIC - directeur général Tél: +33 1 39 30 83 06 mathieu.weill@afnic.fr Twitter : @mathieuweill *****************************
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 Dear Co-Chairs, Let me point to the Charter again, Accountability for the administration of the IANA functions (i.e., implementation and operational accountability) is not within the scope of the CCWG-Accountability as it is being dealt with by the CWG-Stewardship. but my response to the Co-Chair's mail extends this in some detail. ek On 2015-04-17 10:45, Kavouss Arasteh wrote:
Mathueu Thank you very much fir your kind and helpful reply to Dr. Pls advise if the issue if delegation and re delegation is outside the scope of CCWG then where thus important issue could be addressed. Di you also consider the issue of revocation as part if this package? Regards Kaviyss [...]
- -- Dr. Eberhard W. Lisse \ / Obstetrician & Gynaecologist (Saar) el@lisse.NA / * | Telephone: +264 81 124 6733 (cell) PO Box 8421 \ / Bachbrecht, Namibia ;____/ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJVMNyMAAoJEJcFHaN5RT+rjCYP/2y61Qvn4djiVDLkwPRaap49 VC3ze/P+0Hs7zXil0Nv8vzB1NmNucBWCtYQVt0L6zU4RSYQFS/8V0BDh4kVTLKls WFvNmHtmuqZJcRORqlIqPNo7Qq0CjaZczDIbbSkEPT0WedhVKRdnU+GKkyp+ZEA/ kpFoqBsqOv48mwaP1tZVV2pKdt5pWLbSqv+e1Wq3A7eAg6eOmHeso4JGkXA1Y++J 9O7IeWJV3ortui7Dbbt/8FWnmY8xKVBfKHsYAUP7/x30r9xVWZ8LadXCeUTV0RbL rCMJ2hVIAnJOWjN2VdlvJ62Cbc2tnXml8GipmUM6Bd6oW+xLBAApofyariA2CXWV q+9z2kj/X6GYcr4V7WV+/MAFO/nCXf4n12Msc+4GY3wD3Hy40BHuWB515ygvtepx kZsCpMAbfkXkXLrG/VHNJrEcdWmVW4RUAubunaFcVnSql5PTEZA5jIOy7LzSh7gj L3hS747mnFOcXpXTqXvzK6Ck//ZFqpb/sQ2ee1ctuv3qpwXv/7j+CicN1vTw64R0 QC00Hnd68b2UNvz0Vz6iwanYcWpkInhDoZLnQjL4FGN9jITsv2bsXgEAJ+rpTusr wPAF9FpENk9mwdX6uVBz+Wpaof5bjv1PXXUGd6ZVr8vm26yeGWnkyoZSi5aTGcrg GHEc+4zKgfeNLWeYAsuf =2iaC -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Was Eberhard referring to this?? http://www.domainmondo.com/2015/01/icann-cto-comments-on-stark-raving.html?m... RD On Apr 17, 2015 2:58 AM, "Mathieu Weill" <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr> wrote:
Dear Eberhard,
First, please feel free to address us directly and by our first names, let's not add any difficulty here.
Since our call on wednesday, the underlying concern that you raise has become clearer to me, and your email below provides further context. This is very helpful.
The question you raise in the note below is whether the CCWG scope includes accountability mechanisms related to (quoting your message) "how the IANA Function Manager (ICANN at present) makes the actual decisions".
Our group has been very careful so far not to discuss accountability mechanisms with respect to items that are out of the scope of our charter. You will remember that, in our correspondence with the CWG, we carefully phrased that the review and redress mechanisms would only be applicable „to the extent“ ICANN makes decisions regarding ccTLDs. That would not encompass questions of delegation and redelegations.
I have expressed my view as a ccTLD manager yesterday during our ccTLD call, but as co-chair, I am perfectly ok with asking other members of the CCWG to provide their own input, as to whether or not this item should be considered in our scope.
Best regards, Mathieu
Le 15/04/2015 23:41, Dr Eberhard W Lisse a écrit :
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Dear Co-Chairs,
we had us a very good ISTACC call today and I raised my current two issues there, the breakneck pace and the IANA Function Manager accountability.
For the latter, from our charter (the third sentence, the others provided for context):
This process on Enhancing ICANN Accountability is taking place alongside a parallel and related process on the transition of the stewardship of the IANA functions through the CWG to Develop an IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal on Naming Related Functions (hereinafter CWG-Stewardship).
The CWG-Stewardship’s scope is focused on the arrangements required for the continuance of IANA functions in an accountable and widely accepted manner after the expiry of the IANA Functions Contract.
Accountability for the administration of the IANA functions (i.e., implementation and operational accountability) is not within the scope of the CCWG-Accountability as it is being dealt with by the CWG-Stewardship.
Nevertheless, the two processes are interrelated and interdependent and should appropriately coordinate their work.
Your Co-Chair Mathieu stated that he believes the CCWG can not or should not look at IANA related Accountability (or words to that effect, please correct me until we have the transcript) whereas I believe that the operative word here is the "administration" of the functions, not the functions themselves and in particular the decision making process of the Board. Never mind that I can not recall any debate on this issue in the plenum.
I read that as we do not look at the "internal" IANA operations, ie how they do things. For example, one major issue of contention is or has been response time to requests, which as operational issue should be addressed by the CWG. Or my allegation of IANA staff leaning on incumbent or prospective ccTLD Managers or the Contacts. That would also be operational.
But how the IANA Function Manager (ICANN at present) makes the actual decisions is most certainly within our scope and we need to address this.
And I find that starting at the beginning helps.
Hence my repeated request for a look at the (legal) foundation as to how a Californian corporation has been, is and will be empowered to make decisions that affect third parties, such as the ccTLDs, but not necessarily only them.
The failure by the co-chairs to take this up or even to respond, borders on the deliberate.
It's a bit difficult to address the Co-Chairs "through the chair", by the way :-)-O
And, finally, it appears Rod Chehade has apologized, but I really would like to read the transcript of Dave Conrad's presentation he referred to so eloquently.
I will liaise with CWG staff to find it.
greetings, el -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/
iQIVAwUBVS7bDJcFHaN5RT+rAQLorQ/9EnLCX2OEiSWDzfrho1KSAm6a4W7cZVNy 0ohQcz7/eXX6IFFlcb0HFDYMINKxrJIbJ8OSQ946RbC1kSgigLxE7YFjwJcF7swk DQt+ohLsCE9BoxJ0Hdx81v9XDugQU3iZ1QQAbqdN9M203kSWk4PGvnBfIC7G0waN FvQOOR9d0FuzTQ1/g6Mlu6wzl01mwcM65n7Ys0ildAsyQ6iBNzR//5XisQ7x6R7K V+5bH6cXWsdnVcqEJ2X7jIfZV/fPQZJCr9dBBiiPGhVNhaevafRmHJP8hYBA3iqv fDWo84IpL4JBod5rvbLN0iTWT+EkJQJ/Fgn4zPPwpTjrxgvpiMGihbx1wjYWvv3O KwgJDNoK7RjrSjSyNS7blTPfdb7VmIXJlYA9BT4WLBNJJ/FNYOiTRMjHOHXhvS46 GDGcnVV56aYyOfYjd4XHrAFTuxql6R/QSnyVe8g5l9/b7fHUi9cmvwcOr1FP4Vfr wEKYRQq/4HSDnIsE2RVuLVMMlvb0h5X1BEzTtCOfcTdpo4wVd8hcOA0KWvIj7pUv GspPykk3nRycbg0JOP0/et+Sc6BZedPiXuFibLPqJzQrVI/B7K5peo5AIv7YMCk5 5g0rsqUm8CCEVDwGYxiMlTV92myD0Iv6Pc5SEduvuxUkDntWXRKLmF3nL6wVe8lP IYVDdnvgOug= =hGTx -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
-- ***************************** Mathieu WEILL AFNIC - directeur général Tél: +33 1 39 30 83 06 mathieu.weill@afnic.fr Twitter : @mathieuweill *****************************
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Not specifically, but, yes. el -- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini
On Apr 17, 2015, at 19:38, Rudolph Daniel <rudi.daniel@gmail.com> wrote:
Was Eberhard referring to this??
http://www.domainmondo.com/2015/01/icann-cto-comments-on-stark-raving.html?m...
RD
On Apr 17, 2015 2:58 AM, "Mathieu Weill" <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr> wrote: Dear Eberhard,
First, please feel free to address us directly and by our first names, let's not add any difficulty here.
Since our call on wednesday, the underlying concern that you raise has become clearer to me, and your email below provides further context. This is very helpful.
The question you raise in the note below is whether the CCWG scope includes accountability mechanisms related to (quoting your message) "how the IANA Function Manager (ICANN at present) makes the actual decisions".
Our group has been very careful so far not to discuss accountability mechanisms with respect to items that are out of the scope of our charter. You will remember that, in our correspondence with the CWG, we carefully phrased that the review and redress mechanisms would only be applicable „to the extent“ ICANN makes decisions regarding ccTLDs. That would not encompass questions of delegation and redelegations.
I have expressed my view as a ccTLD manager yesterday during our ccTLD call, but as co-chair, I am perfectly ok with asking other members of the CCWG to provide their own input, as to whether or not this item should be considered in our scope.
Best regards, Mathieu
Le 15/04/2015 23:41, Dr Eberhard W Lisse a écrit :
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Dear Co-Chairs,
we had us a very good ISTACC call today and I raised my current two issues there, the breakneck pace and the IANA Function Manager accountability.
For the latter, from our charter (the third sentence, the others provided for context):
This process on Enhancing ICANN Accountability is taking place alongside a parallel and related process on the transition of the stewardship of the IANA functions through the CWG to Develop an IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal on Naming Related Functions (hereinafter CWG-Stewardship).
The CWG-Stewardship’s scope is focused on the arrangements required for the continuance of IANA functions in an accountable and widely accepted manner after the expiry of the IANA Functions Contract.
Accountability for the administration of the IANA functions (i.e., implementation and operational accountability) is not within the scope of the CCWG-Accountability as it is being dealt with by the CWG-Stewardship.
Nevertheless, the two processes are interrelated and interdependent and should appropriately coordinate their work.
Your Co-Chair Mathieu stated that he believes the CCWG can not or should not look at IANA related Accountability (or words to that effect, please correct me until we have the transcript) whereas I believe that the operative word here is the "administration" of the functions, not the functions themselves and in particular the decision making process of the Board. Never mind that I can not recall any debate on this issue in the plenum.
I read that as we do not look at the "internal" IANA operations, ie how they do things. For example, one major issue of contention is or has been response time to requests, which as operational issue should be addressed by the CWG. Or my allegation of IANA staff leaning on incumbent or prospective ccTLD Managers or the Contacts. That would also be operational.
But how the IANA Function Manager (ICANN at present) makes the actual decisions is most certainly within our scope and we need to address this.
And I find that starting at the beginning helps.
Hence my repeated request for a look at the (legal) foundation as to how a Californian corporation has been, is and will be empowered to make decisions that affect third parties, such as the ccTLDs, but not necessarily only them.
The failure by the co-chairs to take this up or even to respond, borders on the deliberate.
It's a bit difficult to address the Co-Chairs "through the chair", by the way :-)-O
And, finally, it appears Rod Chehade has apologized, but I really would like to read the transcript of Dave Conrad's presentation he referred to so eloquently.
I will liaise with CWG staff to find it.
greetings, el -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/
iQIVAwUBVS7bDJcFHaN5RT+rAQLorQ/9EnLCX2OEiSWDzfrho1KSAm6a4W7cZVNy 0ohQcz7/eXX6IFFlcb0HFDYMINKxrJIbJ8OSQ946RbC1kSgigLxE7YFjwJcF7swk DQt+ohLsCE9BoxJ0Hdx81v9XDugQU3iZ1QQAbqdN9M203kSWk4PGvnBfIC7G0waN FvQOOR9d0FuzTQ1/g6Mlu6wzl01mwcM65n7Ys0ildAsyQ6iBNzR//5XisQ7x6R7K V+5bH6cXWsdnVcqEJ2X7jIfZV/fPQZJCr9dBBiiPGhVNhaevafRmHJP8hYBA3iqv fDWo84IpL4JBod5rvbLN0iTWT+EkJQJ/Fgn4zPPwpTjrxgvpiMGihbx1wjYWvv3O KwgJDNoK7RjrSjSyNS7blTPfdb7VmIXJlYA9BT4WLBNJJ/FNYOiTRMjHOHXhvS46 GDGcnVV56aYyOfYjd4XHrAFTuxql6R/QSnyVe8g5l9/b7fHUi9cmvwcOr1FP4Vfr wEKYRQq/4HSDnIsE2RVuLVMMlvb0h5X1BEzTtCOfcTdpo4wVd8hcOA0KWvIj7pUv GspPykk3nRycbg0JOP0/et+Sc6BZedPiXuFibLPqJzQrVI/B7K5peo5AIv7YMCk5 5g0rsqUm8CCEVDwGYxiMlTV92myD0Iv6Pc5SEduvuxUkDntWXRKLmF3nL6wVe8lP IYVDdnvgOug= =hGTx -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
-- ***************************** Mathieu WEILL AFNIC - directeur général Tél: +33 1 39 30 83 06 mathieu.weill@afnic.fr Twitter : @mathieuweill *****************************
_______________________________________________ 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
participants (8)
-
Dr Eberhard Lisse -
Dr Eberhard W Lisse
-
Dr Eberhard W Lisse -
Kavouss Arasteh -
León Felipe Sánchez Ambía -
Mathieu Weill -
Rudolph Daniel -
WUKnoben