Re: [CCWG-ACCT] [Acct-Legal] Accountability questions to law firms
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 ;____/
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-community
Can the Co-Chairs please express my support for Mr Drazek's comments below? Let us focus on the work at hand and let us try to get the most out of the intensive work sessions for those able to make it. James Gannon -----Original Message----- From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Drazek, Keith Sent: Thursday, April 23, 2015 7:55 PM To: CCWG Accountability Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] [Acct-Legal] Accountability questions to law firms 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-community
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Dear Co-Chairs, I would also like to express my support for Mr. Drazek's comments. Best regards, Greg Shatan On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 3:31 PM, James Gannon <james@cyberinvasion.net> wrote:
Can the Co-Chairs please express my support for Mr Drazek's comments below? Let us focus on the work at hand and let us try to get the most out of the intensive work sessions for those able to make it.
James Gannon
-----Original Message----- From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Drazek, Keith Sent: Thursday, April 23, 2015 7:55 PM To: CCWG Accountability Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] [Acct-Legal] Accountability questions to law firms
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-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
I would also lend my support, in my non-Verisign capacity. J. From: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> Date: Thursday, April 23, 2015 at 16:21 To: James Gannon <james@cyberinvasion.net<mailto:james@cyberinvasion.net>> Cc: CCWG Accountability <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] [Acct-Legal] Accountability questions to law firms Dear Co-Chairs, I would also like to express my support for Mr. Drazek's comments. Best regards, Greg Shatan On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 3:31 PM, James Gannon <james@cyberinvasion.net<mailto:james@cyberinvasion.net>> wrote: Can the Co-Chairs please express my support for Mr Drazek's comments below? Let us focus on the work at hand and let us try to get the most out of the intensive work sessions for those able to make it. James Gannon -----Original Message----- From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Drazek, Keith Sent: Thursday, April 23, 2015 7:55 PM To: CCWG Accountability Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] [Acct-Legal] Accountability questions to law firms 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<mailto: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<mailto:el@lisse.NA> / * | Telephone: +264 81 124 6733<tel:%2B264%2081%20124%206733> (cell) PO Box 8421 \ / Bachbrecht, Namibia ;____/
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Dear Co-Chairs, pleas convey my disappointment to the participant representing the interests of the IPC that he was pipped to the post, fortunately only by another participant from the gNSO. Intense work days, indeed... el -- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini
On Apr 23, 2015, at 22:21, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Co-Chairs,
I would also like to express my support for Mr. Drazek's comments.
Best regards,
Greg Shatan
On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 3:31 PM, James Gannon <james@cyberinvasion.net> wrote: Can the Co-Chairs please express my support for Mr Drazek's comments below? Let us focus on the work at hand and let us try to get the most out of the intensive work sessions for those able to make it.
James Gannon
[...]
Dear Co-Chairs, Please allow me to correct certain of the misstatements that have recently issued, while the rest of us are trying to work. First, I decided nothing. The decision referred to was made by the Legal Subteam. Second, I was not "pipped to the post" to use the the anachronistic sporting phrase, since I was not racing to do anything. Indeed, I have said far less than I might, so that I am not drawn into this distraction. I agreed with something I read; no more, no less. But it seems "par for the course" to have an intent or basis ascribed to me that I do not have. Third, my view on the request for legal assistance has nothing to do with my affiliation with the GNSO. It was based on my view of the relevance of the request to the work of the CCWG. See above regarding "misascription" of intent or basis. Finally, in my view,the meeting so far today have disproved the characterizations made below. Sadly, anyone who took their hands off the oar (to continue in a sporting vein) and elected not to participate would never know. Best regards, Greg Shatan On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 5:49 PM, Dr Eberhard W Lisse <el@lisse.na> wrote:
Dear Co-Chairs,
pleas convey my disappointment to the participant representing the interests of the IPC that he was pipped to the post, fortunately only by another participant from the gNSO.
Intense work days, indeed...
el -- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini
On Apr 23, 2015, at 22:21, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Co-Chairs,
I would also like to express my support for Mr. Drazek's comments.
Best regards,
Greg Shatan
On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 3:31 PM, James Gannon <james@cyberinvasion.net> wrote:
Can the Co-Chairs please express my support for Mr Drazek's comments below? Let us focus on the work at hand and let us try to get the most out of the intensive work sessions for those able to make it.
James Gannon
[...]
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Dear Co-Chairs, let me quote from the transcript of the Legal SubTeam session in question the participant representing the Interests of the IP who was chairing in an acting capacity: "In addition another email came up today asking a question which the sender wished to have the lawyers look into that was an email from Dr. (Eberhard Elisa). And his topic was what gives the US government the right to control the root anyway? He also indicated that he had perceived a past promise to for the lawyers to review or answer this question. I have not done an exhaustive review of the record but don’t recall any such promise being made. I also don’t see the direct linkage between that and Workstream 1 or even between that and accountability per se. So I think both - there’s both that particular issue and the others that I circulated a little bit earlier we have to decide how to deal with those and what if anything to assigned to the lawyers." The next reference to the issue is by Mr McAulay a little later: "And so my hope is that while Dr. (Elisa)’s question is interesting is that we raise questions right now that deal with Workstream 1 for, you know, in order to support the CCWG as best we can between now and April 21." I can not see a consensus call, not that an un-chartered SubTeam would be authorized to make the decision in the first place. el -- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini
On Apr 23, 2015, at 23:09, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Co-Chairs,
Please allow me to correct certain of the misstatements that have recently issued, while the rest of us are trying to work.
First, I decided nothing. The decision referred to was made by the Legal Subteam. Second, I was not "pipped to the post" to use the the anachronistic sporting phrase, since I was not racing to do anything. Indeed, I have said far less than I might, so that I am not drawn into this distraction. I agreed with something I read; no more, no less. But it seems "par for the course" to have an intent or basis ascribed to me that I do not have. Third, my view on the request for legal assistance has nothing to do with my affiliation with the GNSO. It was based on my view of the relevance of the request to the work of the CCWG. See above regarding "misascription" of intent or basis.
Finally, in my view,the meeting so far today have disproved the characterizations made below. Sadly, anyone who took their hands off the oar (to continue in a sporting vein) and elected not to participate would never know.
Best regards,
Greg Shatan
On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 5:49 PM, Dr Eberhard W Lisse <el@lisse.na> wrote: Dear Co-Chairs,
pleas convey my disappointment to the participant representing the interests of the IPC that he was pipped to the post, fortunately only by another participant from the gNSO.
Intense work days, indeed...
el -- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini
Dear Co-Chairs, I apologize for emailing the participant representing the interests of the IPC directly. el -- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini
On Apr 24, 2015, at 00:22, Dr Eberhard W Lisse <el@lisse.na> wrote:
Dear Co-Chairs,
let me quote from the transcript of the Legal SubTeam session in question the participant representing the Interests of the IP who was chairing in an acting capacity: "In addition another email came up today asking a question which the sender wished to have the lawyers look into that was an email from Dr. (Eberhard Elisa).
And his topic was what gives the US government the right to control the root anyway? He also indicated that he had perceived a past promise to for the lawyers to review or answer this question.
I have not done an exhaustive review of the record but don’t recall any such promise being made. I also don’t see the direct linkage between that and Workstream 1 or even between that and accountability per se.
So I think both - there’s both that particular issue and the others that I circulated a little bit earlier we have to decide how to deal with those and what if anything to assigned to the lawyers."
The next reference to the issue is by Mr McAulay a little later: "And so my hope is that while Dr. (Elisa)’s question is interesting is that we raise questions right now that deal with Workstream 1 for, you know, in order to support the CCWG as best we can between now and April 21."
I can not see a consensus call, not that an un-chartered SubTeam would be authorized to make the decision in the first place.
el -- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini
On Apr 23, 2015, at 23:09, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Co-Chairs,
Please allow me to correct certain of the misstatements that have recently issued, while the rest of us are trying to work.
First, I decided nothing. The decision referred to was made by the Legal Subteam. Second, I was not "pipped to the post" to use the the anachronistic sporting phrase, since I was not racing to do anything. Indeed, I have said far less than I might, so that I am not drawn into this distraction. I agreed with something I read; no more, no less. But it seems "par for the course" to have an intent or basis ascribed to me that I do not have. Third, my view on the request for legal assistance has nothing to do with my affiliation with the GNSO. It was based on my view of the relevance of the request to the work of the CCWG. See above regarding "misascription" of intent or basis.
Finally, in my view,the meeting so far today have disproved the characterizations made below. Sadly, anyone who took their hands off the oar (to continue in a sporting vein) and elected not to participate would never know.
Best regards,
Greg Shatan
On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 5:49 PM, Dr Eberhard W Lisse <el@lisse.na> wrote: Dear Co-Chairs,
pleas convey my disappointment to the participant representing the interests of the IPC that he was pipped to the post, fortunately only by another participant from the gNSO.
Intense work days, indeed...
el -- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini
Dear Co-Chairs, Please allow me to point out that I am not "representing the IPC" or "representing the interests of the IPC" in my involvement in the CCWG, in which I am a "participant." I joined the CCWG of my personal volition, in my individual capacity. I do, however, represent the Commercial Stakeholder Group in the CWG-IANA, in which I am a "member," appointed by the CSG. Best regards, Greg Shatan On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 7:24 PM, Dr Eberhard W Lisse <el@lisse.na> wrote:
Dear Co-Chairs,
I apologize for emailing the participant representing the interests of the IPC directly.
el -- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini
On Apr 24, 2015, at 00:22, Dr Eberhard W Lisse <el@lisse.na> wrote:
Dear Co-Chairs,
let me quote from the transcript of the Legal SubTeam session in question the participant representing the Interests of the IP who was chairing in an acting capacity:
"In addition another email came up today asking a question which the sender wished to have the lawyers look into that was an email from Dr. (Eberhard Elisa).
And his topic was what gives the US government the right to control the root anyway? He also indicated that he had perceived a past promise to for the lawyers to review or answer this question.
I have not done an exhaustive review of the record but don’t recall any such promise being made. I also don’t see the direct linkage between that and Workstream 1 or even between that and accountability per se.
So I think both - there’s both that particular issue and the others that I circulated a little bit earlier we have to decide how to deal with those and what if anything to assigned to the lawyers." The next reference to the issue is by Mr McAulay a little later:
"And so my hope is that while Dr. (Elisa)’s question is interesting is that we raise questions right now that deal with Workstream 1 for, you know, in order to support the CCWG as best we can between now and April 21."
I can not see a consensus call, not that an un-chartered SubTeam would be authorized to make the decision in the first place.
el -- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini
On Apr 23, 2015, at 23:09, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Co-Chairs,
Please allow me to correct certain of the misstatements that have recently issued, while the rest of us are trying to work.
First, I decided nothing. The decision referred to was made by the Legal Subteam. Second, I was not "pipped to the post" to use the the anachronistic sporting phrase, since I was not racing to do anything. Indeed, I have said far less than I might, so that I am not drawn into this distraction. I agreed with something I read; no more, no less. But it seems "par for the course" to have an intent or basis ascribed to me that I do not have. Third, my view on the request for legal assistance has nothing to do with my affiliation with the GNSO. It was based on my view of the relevance of the request to the work of the CCWG. See above regarding "misascription" of intent or basis.
Finally, in my view,the meeting so far today have disproved the characterizations made below. Sadly, anyone who took their hands off the oar (to continue in a sporting vein) and elected not to participate would never know.
Best regards,
Greg Shatan
On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 5:49 PM, Dr Eberhard W Lisse <el@lisse.na> wrote:
Dear Co-Chairs,
pleas convey my disappointment to the participant representing the interests of the IPC that he was pipped to the post, fortunately only by another participant from the gNSO.
Intense work days, indeed...
el -- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Dear all, Thank you for this discussion that, while off topic with our work, gives us a feeling on the temperature within the group around the issues on the thread. One thing I would like to stress is that ad-hominem attacks, characterizations, recriminations or otherwise non-constructive conducts are not within what we as group or community have fostered and are not in line with ICANN Expected Standards of Behavior. Therefore, I would like to make a general call to avoid falling into this kind of behavior and continue to concentrate in our work which is a more relevant issue. I thank all for your support in joining this call to constructiveness. Best regards, León
El 23/04/2015, a las 18:50, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> escribió:
Dear Co-Chairs,
Please allow me to point out that I am not "representing the IPC" or "representing the interests of the IPC" in my involvement in the CCWG, in which I am a "participant." I joined the CCWG of my personal volition, in my individual capacity. I do, however, represent the Commercial Stakeholder Group in the CWG-IANA, in which I am a "member," appointed by the CSG.
Best regards,
Greg Shatan
On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 7:24 PM, Dr Eberhard W Lisse <el@lisse.na <mailto:el@lisse.na>> wrote: Dear Co-Chairs,
I apologize for emailing the participant representing the interests of the IPC directly.
el -- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini
On Apr 24, 2015, at 00:22, Dr Eberhard W Lisse <el@lisse.na <mailto:el@lisse.na>> wrote:
Dear Co-Chairs,
let me quote from the transcript of the Legal SubTeam session in question the participant representing the Interests of the IP who was chairing in an acting capacity: "In addition another email came up today asking a question which the sender wished to have the lawyers look into that was an email from Dr. (Eberhard Elisa).
And his topic was what gives the US government the right to control the root anyway? He also indicated that he had perceived a past promise to for the lawyers to review or answer this question.
I have not done an exhaustive review of the record but don’t recall any such promise being made. I also don’t see the direct linkage between that and Workstream 1 or even between that and accountability per se.
So I think both - there’s both that particular issue and the others that I circulated a little bit earlier we have to decide how to deal with those and what if anything to assigned to the lawyers."
The next reference to the issue is by Mr McAulay a little later: "And so my hope is that while Dr. (Elisa)’s question is interesting is that we raise questions right now that deal with Workstream 1 for, you know, in order to support the CCWG as best we can between now and April 21."
I can not see a consensus call, not that an un-chartered SubTeam would be authorized to make the decision in the first place.
el -- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini
On Apr 23, 2015, at 23:09, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> wrote:
Dear Co-Chairs,
Please allow me to correct certain of the misstatements that have recently issued, while the rest of us are trying to work.
First, I decided nothing. The decision referred to was made by the Legal Subteam. Second, I was not "pipped to the post" to use the the anachronistic sporting phrase, since I was not racing to do anything. Indeed, I have said far less than I might, so that I am not drawn into this distraction. I agreed with something I read; no more, no less. But it seems "par for the course" to have an intent or basis ascribed to me that I do not have. Third, my view on the request for legal assistance has nothing to do with my affiliation with the GNSO. It was based on my view of the relevance of the request to the work of the CCWG. See above regarding "misascription" of intent or basis.
Finally, in my view,the meeting so far today have disproved the characterizations made below. Sadly, anyone who took their hands off the oar (to continue in a sporting vein) and elected not to participate would never know.
Best regards,
Greg Shatan
On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 5:49 PM, Dr Eberhard W Lisse <el@lisse.na <mailto:el@lisse.na>> wrote: Dear Co-Chairs,
pleas convey my disappointment to the participant representing the interests of the IPC that he was pipped to the post, fortunately only by another participant from the gNSO.
Intense work days, indeed...
el -- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community <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
All,
One thing I would like to stress is that ad-hominem attacks, characterizations, recriminations or otherwise non-constructive >conducts are not within what we as group or community have fostered and are not in line with ICANN Expected Standards of >Behavior.
Exactly. And I suggest we simply ignore those who do behave in such a way and concentrate our time and effort on issues where we actually can make a positive difference. Best, Roelof From: León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx<mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>> Date: vrijdag 24 april 2015 03:19 To: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> Cc: CCWG Accountability <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] [Acct-Legal] Accountability questions to law firms Dear all, Thank you for this discussion that, while off topic with our work, gives us a feeling on the temperature within the group around the issues on the thread. One thing I would like to stress is that ad-hominem attacks, characterizations, recriminations or otherwise non-constructive conducts are not within what we as group or community have fostered and are not in line with ICANN Expected Standards of Behavior. Therefore, I would like to make a general call to avoid falling into this kind of behavior and continue to concentrate in our work which is a more relevant issue. I thank all for your support in joining this call to constructiveness. Best regards, León El 23/04/2015, a las 18:50, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> escribió: Dear Co-Chairs, Please allow me to point out that I am not "representing the IPC" or "representing the interests of the IPC" in my involvement in the CCWG, in which I am a "participant." I joined the CCWG of my personal volition, in my individual capacity. I do, however, represent the Commercial Stakeholder Group in the CWG-IANA, in which I am a "member," appointed by the CSG. Best regards, Greg Shatan On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 7:24 PM, Dr Eberhard W Lisse <el@lisse.na<mailto:el@lisse.na>> wrote: Dear Co-Chairs, I apologize for emailing the participant representing the interests of the IPC directly. el -- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini On Apr 24, 2015, at 00:22, Dr Eberhard W Lisse <el@lisse.na<mailto:el@lisse.na>> wrote: Dear Co-Chairs, let me quote from the transcript of the Legal SubTeam session in question the participant representing the Interests of the IP who was chairing in an acting capacity: "In addition another email came up today asking a question which the sender wished to have the lawyers look into that was an email from Dr. (Eberhard Elisa). And his topic was what gives the US government the right to control the root anyway? He also indicated that he had perceived a past promise to for the lawyers to review or answer this question. I have not done an exhaustive review of the record but don’t recall any such promise being made. I also don’t see the direct linkage between that and Workstream 1 or even between that and accountability per se. So I think both - there’s both that particular issue and the others that I circulated a little bit earlier we have to decide how to deal with those and what if anything to assigned to the lawyers." The next reference to the issue is by Mr McAulay a little later: "And so my hope is that while Dr. (Elisa)’s question is interesting is that we raise questions right now that deal with Workstream 1 for, you know, in order to support the CCWG as best we can between now and April 21." I can not see a consensus call, not that an un-chartered SubTeam would be authorized to make the decision in the first place. el -- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini On Apr 23, 2015, at 23:09, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> wrote: Dear Co-Chairs, Please allow me to correct certain of the misstatements that have recently issued, while the rest of us are trying to work. First, I decided nothing. The decision referred to was made by the Legal Subteam. Second, I was not "pipped to the post" to use the the anachronistic sporting phrase, since I was not racing to do anything. Indeed, I have said far less than I might, so that I am not drawn into this distraction. I agreed with something I read; no more, no less. But it seems "par for the course" to have an intent or basis ascribed to me that I do not have. Third, my view on the request for legal assistance has nothing to do with my affiliation with the GNSO. It was based on my view of the relevance of the request to the work of the CCWG. See above regarding "misascription" of intent or basis. Finally, in my view,the meeting so far today have disproved the characterizations made below. Sadly, anyone who took their hands off the oar (to continue in a sporting vein) and elected not to participate would never know. Best regards, Greg Shatan On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 5:49 PM, Dr Eberhard W Lisse <el@lisse.na<mailto:el@lisse.na>> wrote: Dear Co-Chairs, pleas convey my disappointment to the participant representing the interests of the IPC that he was pipped to the post, fortunately only by another participant from the gNSO. Intense work days, indeed... el -- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Dea Co-Chairs Thomas and Mathieu, please point out to your colleague that he is wrong. (Criticizm) As usual. (Ad hominem) There is NOTHING in ICANN Expected Standards of Behavior requiring being constructive (if it only were so, but then who to judge) or outlawing ad hominem. It just must be civil (such as going through the Chairs) and non-discriminatory. With regards to the fundamental questions I ask and which must be answered, what are you afraid of? The answer? el On 2015-04-24 02:19, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía wrote: [...
One thing I would like to stress is that ad-hominem attacks, characterizations, recriminations or otherwise non-constructive conducts are not within what we as group or community have fostered and are not in line with ICANN Expected Standards of Behavior. [...] -- Dr. Eberhard W. Lisse \ / Obstetrician & Gynaecologist (Saar) el@lisse.NA / * | Telephone: +264 81 124 6733 (cell) PO Box 8421 \ / Bachbrecht, Namibia ;____/
Thanks Eberhard. Suddenly your mails began to go into my spam folder. It must be some technical issue. Will look into it. Best regards, León
El 24/04/2015, a las 3:07, Dr Eberhard Lisse <el@lisse.NA> escribió:
Dea Co-Chairs Thomas and Mathieu,
please point out to your colleague that he is wrong. (Criticizm)
As usual. (Ad hominem)
There is NOTHING in ICANN Expected Standards of Behavior requiring being constructive (if it only were so, but then who to judge) or outlawing ad hominem.
It just must be civil (such as going through the Chairs) and non-discriminatory.
With regards to the fundamental questions I ask and which must be answered, what are you afraid of? The answer?
el
On 2015-04-24 02:19, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía wrote: [...
One thing I would like to stress is that ad-hominem attacks, characterizations, recriminations or otherwise non-constructive conducts are not within what we as group or community have fostered and are not in line with ICANN Expected Standards of Behavior. [...] -- 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-community
Leon, happens here too (Thunderbird) all the time. Apple Mail is better in that regards since I use SpamSieve (doesn't work on T-Bird) but I a used to T-Bird now :-)-O. greetings, el On 2015-04-24 09:17, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía wrote:
Thanks Eberhard.
Suddenly your mails began to go into my spam folder. It must be some technical issue. Will look into it.
Best regards,
León [...] -- Dr. Eberhard W. Lisse \ / Obstetrician & Gynaecologist (Saar) el@lisse.NA / * | Telephone: +264 81 124 6733 (cell) PO Box 8421 \ / Bachbrecht, Namibia ;____/
Dear Co-CHairs, ah, the well known altruism of American members of the second oldest profession working as lobbyists for big financial interests. greetings, el On 2015-04-24 00:50 , Greg Shatan wrote:
Dear Co-Chairs,
Please allow me to point out that I am not "representing the IPC" or "representing the interests of the IPC" in my involvement in the CCWG, in which I am a "participant." I joined the CCWG of my personal volition, in my individual capacity. I do, however, represent the Commercial Stakeholder Group in the CWG-IANA, in which I am a "member," appointed by the CSG.
Best regards,
Greg Shatan
[...] -- Dr. Eberhard W. Lisse \ / Obstetrician & Gynaecologist (Saar) el@lisse.NA / * | Telephone: +264 81 124 6733 (cell) PO Box 8421 \ / Bachbrecht, Namibia ;____/
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-community
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
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-community
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
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-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
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
Dear Co-Chairs, not only does the CCWG not operate under Roberts or Jeffersons rules, but I note that it is acceptable to have ulterior motives but not to talk about them. In any case the question of discourse is addressed by the Charter and ICANN's Standards of Behaviour. Never mind that I find the focus on the side show amusing if not unexpected. What one does to avoid going into the merits... greetings, el -- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPhone 6
On Apr 24, 2015, at 01:46, Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> wrote:
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
Dear Co-CHairs, I note the change in the angle of approach. This is a very reasonable description of the multi-stakeholder approach, lacking only that here are more than 250 ccTLD Managers, a large number of which are small (like .NA's), lack the resources (like .NA's) are in the same position (as .NA's) and don't have a voice here (unlike .NA's). el On 2015-04-24 00:12 , Drazek, Keith 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 [...]
-- Dr. Eberhard W. Lisse \ / Obstetrician & Gynaecologist (Saar) el@lisse.NA / * | Telephone: +264 81 124 6733 (cell) PO Box 8421 \ / Bachbrecht, Namibia ;____/
participants (10)
-
Dr Eberhard Lisse -
Dr Eberhard W Lisse
-
Drazek, Keith -
Edward Morris -
Greg Shatan -
James Gannon -
James M. Bladel -
León Felipe Sánchez Ambía -
Paul Rosenzweig -
Roelof Meijer