Further Objection to the Methodology
Dear Co-Chairs, Why have the slides of the law firm not been sent to us early enough to consider them, prior to being presented and discussed? Never mind decision making. I object to this. el -- Dr. Eberhard W. Lisse \ / Obstetrician & Gynaecologist (Saar) el@lisse.NA / * | Telephone: +264 81 124 6733 (cell) PO Box 8421 \ / Bachbrecht, Namibia ;____/
Dear Eberhard, The slides were sent to everyone as soon as we got them. I remind you that no substantial decision is made on any single call so you don’t have to worry on having to decide on anything on this call. We make second readings on substantial issues. Best regards, León
El 14/04/2015, a las 7:25, Dr Eberhard Lisse <el@lisse.NA> escribió:
Dear Co-Chairs,
Why have the slides of the law firm not been sent to us early enough to consider them, prior to being presented and discussed? Never mind decision making.
I object to this.
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
Dear Co-Charis, this is not directed against an individual or a group of individuals (inside the CCWG). I can not participate in a meaningful deliberation on this unless I have time to properly review this document, not just being fed a large number of busy slides. Never mind "decision". There are some content issues (for example with regards to membership as far as ccTLDs are concerned) which flashed by. This the wrong way of dealing with this, and I renew my objection for the record. el On 2015-04-14 13:29, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía wrote:
Dear Eberhard,
The slides were sent to everyone as soon as we got them.
I remind you that no substantial decision is made on any single call so you don’t have to worry on having to decide on anything on this call. We make second readings on substantial issues.
Best regards,
León
El 14/04/2015, a las 7:25, Dr Eberhard Lisse <el@lisse.NA> escribió:
Dear Co-Chairs,
Why have the slides of the law firm not been sent to us early enough to consider them, prior to being presented and discussed? Never mind decision making.
I object to this.
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
-- Dr. Eberhard W. Lisse \ / Obstetrician & Gynaecologist (Saar) el@lisse.NA / * | Telephone: +264 81 124 6733 (cell) PO Box 8421 \ / Bachbrecht, Namibia ;____/
Dear Eberhard, Thanks for your comments. Which content issues did you identify in the document? I will be happy to discuss and take back to the legal sub-team and the lawyers. Best regards, León
El 14/04/2015, a las 7:42, Dr Eberhard Lisse <el@lisse.NA> escribió:
Dear Co-Charis,
this is not directed against an individual or a group of individuals (inside the CCWG).
I can not participate in a meaningful deliberation on this unless I have time to properly review this document, not just being fed a large number of busy slides.
Never mind "decision".
There are some content issues (for example with regards to membership as far as ccTLDs are concerned) which flashed by.
This the wrong way of dealing with this, and I renew my objection for the record.
el
On 2015-04-14 13:29, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía wrote:
Dear Eberhard,
The slides were sent to everyone as soon as we got them.
I remind you that no substantial decision is made on any single call so you don’t have to worry on having to decide on anything on this call. We make second readings on substantial issues.
Best regards,
León
El 14/04/2015, a las 7:25, Dr Eberhard Lisse <el@lisse.NA> escribió:
Dear Co-Chairs,
Why have the slides of the law firm not been sent to us early enough to consider them, prior to being presented and discussed? Never mind decision making.
I object to this.
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
-- 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
Dear Co-Chairs Thomas and Matheiu, Can you please explain to you Co-Chair that the very point was that I need time to study the document and that I objected and still object against dealing with this in a cursory manner. However, since he asked, I'll write under correction, that I don't think ccTLDs can be (in) a member organization unless all 253 bind themselves to this. I have asked NUMEROUS times, to no avail, that we find out what the legal foundation of the USG's claim to the root/IANA function is. And we need to establish how this relates to each ccTLD. We may not be able to do this for all 253 (or how many they are) but there are a few broad categories we can classify them in. For example (and just off the cuff and decidedly incomplete) Before RFC1951 (1994) before ICANN During ICANN IDN ccTLDs But, again, I object to being put under pressure of dealing with a complex matter and document in a superficial manner. greetings, el On 2015-04-15 04:16 , León Felipe Sánchez Ambía wrote:
Dear Eberhard,
Thanks for your comments.
Which content issues did you identify in the document? I will be happy to discuss and take back to the legal sub-team and the lawyers.
Best regards,
León
El 14/04/2015, a las 7:42, Dr Eberhard Lisse <el@lisse.NA> escribió:
Dear Co-Charis,
this is not directed against an individual or a group of individuals (inside the CCWG).
I can not participate in a meaningful deliberation on this unless I have time to properly review this document, not just being fed a large number of busy slides.
Never mind "decision".
There are some content issues (for example with regards to membership as far as ccTLDs are concerned) which flashed by.
This the wrong way of dealing with this, and I renew my objection for the record.
el
On 2015-04-14 13:29, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía wrote:
Dear Eberhard,
The slides were sent to everyone as soon as we got them.
I remind you that no substantial decision is made on any single call so you don’t have to worry on having to decide on anything on this call. We make second readings on substantial issues.
Best regards,
León
El 14/04/2015, a las 7:25, Dr Eberhard Lisse <el@lisse.NA> escribió:
Dear Co-Chairs,
Why have the slides of the law firm not been sent to us early enough to consider them, prior to being presented and discussed? Never mind decision making.
I object to this.
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
-- 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
-- Dr. Eberhard W. Lisse \ / Obstetrician & Gynaecologist (Saar) el@lisse.NA / * | Telephone: +264 81 124 6733 (cell) PO Box 8421 \ / Bachbrecht, Namibia ;____/
I am in agreement with Dr. Lisse,i think the issues he raises are of fundamental importance and should be looked at in detail as we move forwad. It is better to get it right than as opposed to just focusing on a deliverable. Regards On 4/15/15, Dr Eberhard W Lisse <el@lisse.na> wrote:
Dear Co-Chairs Thomas and Matheiu,
Can you please explain to you Co-Chair that the very point was that I need time to study the document and that I objected and still object against dealing with this in a cursory manner.
However, since he asked, I'll write under correction, that I don't think ccTLDs can be (in) a member organization unless all 253 bind themselves to this.
I have asked NUMEROUS times, to no avail, that we find out what the legal foundation of the USG's claim to the root/IANA function is. And we need to establish how this relates to each ccTLD. We may not be able to do this for all 253 (or how many they are) but there are a few broad categories we can classify them in.
For example (and just off the cuff and decidedly incomplete)
Before RFC1951 (1994) before ICANN During ICANN IDN ccTLDs
But, again, I object to being put under pressure of dealing with a complex matter and document in a superficial manner.
greetings, el
On 2015-04-15 04:16 , León Felipe Sánchez Ambía wrote:
Dear Eberhard,
Thanks for your comments.
Which content issues did you identify in the document? I will be happy to discuss and take back to the legal sub-team and the lawyers.
Best regards,
León
El 14/04/2015, a las 7:42, Dr Eberhard Lisse <el@lisse.NA> escribió:
Dear Co-Charis,
this is not directed against an individual or a group of individuals (inside the CCWG).
I can not participate in a meaningful deliberation on this unless I have time to properly review this document, not just being fed a large number of busy slides.
Never mind "decision".
There are some content issues (for example with regards to membership as far as ccTLDs are concerned) which flashed by.
This the wrong way of dealing with this, and I renew my objection for the record.
el
On 2015-04-14 13:29, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía wrote:
Dear Eberhard,
The slides were sent to everyone as soon as we got them.
I remind you that no substantial decision is made on any single call so you don’t have to worry on having to decide on anything on this call. We make second readings on substantial issues.
Best regards,
León
El 14/04/2015, a las 7:25, Dr Eberhard Lisse <el@lisse.NA> escribió:
Dear Co-Chairs,
Why have the slides of the law firm not been sent to us early enough to consider them, prior to being presented and discussed? Never mind decision making.
I object to this.
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
-- 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
-- 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
-- Barrack O. Otieno +254721325277 +254-20-2498789 Skype: barrack.otieno http://www.otienobarrack.me.ke/
+1 Lisse, Otieno. -Akinbo. On Wed, Apr 15, 2015 at 10:22 AM, Barrack Otieno <otieno.barrack@gmail.com> wrote:
I am in agreement with Dr. Lisse,i think the issues he raises are of fundamental importance and should be looked at in detail as we move forwad. It is better to get it right than as opposed to just focusing on a deliverable.
Regards
On 4/15/15, Dr Eberhard W Lisse <el@lisse.na> wrote:
Dear Co-Chairs Thomas and Matheiu,
Can you please explain to you Co-Chair that the very point was that I need time to study the document and that I objected and still object against dealing with this in a cursory manner.
However, since he asked, I'll write under correction, that I don't think ccTLDs can be (in) a member organization unless all 253 bind themselves to this.
I have asked NUMEROUS times, to no avail, that we find out what the legal foundation of the USG's claim to the root/IANA function is. And we need to establish how this relates to each ccTLD. We may not be able to do this for all 253 (or how many they are) but there are a few broad categories we can classify them in.
For example (and just off the cuff and decidedly incomplete)
Before RFC1951 (1994) before ICANN During ICANN IDN ccTLDs
But, again, I object to being put under pressure of dealing with a complex matter and document in a superficial manner.
greetings, el
On 2015-04-15 04:16 , León Felipe Sánchez Ambía wrote:
Dear Eberhard,
Thanks for your comments.
Which content issues did you identify in the document? I will be happy to discuss and take back to the legal sub-team and the lawyers.
Best regards,
León
El 14/04/2015, a las 7:42, Dr Eberhard Lisse <el@lisse.NA> escribió:
Dear Co-Charis,
this is not directed against an individual or a group of individuals (inside the CCWG).
I can not participate in a meaningful deliberation on this unless I have time to properly review this document, not just being fed a large number of busy slides.
Never mind "decision".
There are some content issues (for example with regards to membership as far as ccTLDs are concerned) which flashed by.
This the wrong way of dealing with this, and I renew my objection for the record.
el
On 2015-04-14 13:29, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía wrote:
Dear Eberhard,
The slides were sent to everyone as soon as we got them.
I remind you that no substantial decision is made on any single call so you don’t have to worry on having to decide on anything on this call. We make second readings on substantial issues.
Best regards,
León
El 14/04/2015, a las 7:25, Dr Eberhard Lisse <el@lisse.NA> escribió:
Dear Co-Chairs,
Why have the slides of the law firm not been sent to us early enough to consider them, prior to being presented and discussed? Never mind decision making.
I object to this.
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
-- 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
-- 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
-- Barrack O. Otieno +254721325277 +254-20-2498789 Skype: barrack.otieno http://www.otienobarrack.me.ke/ _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
-- *Evang. Akinbo A. A. Cornerstone, Nigeria.* +2348064464545, +2348089118151 | 2BAC511D. www.akinbo.ng *Member, Executive Board of Directors*, Nigeria Internet Registration Association (NiRA) www.nira.org.ng | akinbo@nira.org.ng <akinbo@yips.org.ng> @niraworks *Acting Chief Operating Officer,* DNS Africa Magazine www.dnsafrica.org | akinbo@dnsafrica.org @dnsafrica *National Convener,* Nigerian Youth Coalition on Internet Governance (NG-YCIG) www.ycig.org.ng <http://www.nira.org.ng/> *President,* Young Internet Professionals (YiPS) www.yips.gnbo.com.ng <http://wwwyips.org.ng/> | akinbo@yips.org.ng *The RedHub.* 12, Afonka Odebunmi Street, Lagos State. http://www.theredhub.org/ *National Focal Point ( Nigeria ) 2009-2011.* Global Youth Coalition on HIV/AIDS (a program of TakingITGlobal) www.youthaidscoalition.org www.takingitglobal.com www.iaids.org About me: http://profiles.tigweb.org/pscornerstone
Dear Eberhard, Akinbo and Sean, While I agree this issue requires deliberate treatment, I have a few questions in response to points raised in this thread. Why couldn't a subset of ccTLD members (those who have joined the ccNSO) collaborate to make the ccNSO a statutory member of ICANN? We're not talking about every registry (gTLD or ccTLD) or individual person who participates in ICANN becoming a direct member. That some ccTLDs choose to not join the ccNSO shouldn't prevent those who have joined from cooperating to give the ccNSO greater oversight of ICANN's Board and staff. Or am I missing something? Please help me understand the specific ccTLD concern in this context. If we're designing an accountability framework for ICANN and its community, how can we be expected to accommodate and incorporate the interests of self-determined outsiders other than to invite them to join the community and participate in its processes? In my view, anyone with interests impacted by ICANN should get involved and not sit outside looking in. Also, Eberhard, I'm not clear on why the legal foundation for the USG's claim on the IANA functions/root is relevant to the discussion of ICANN's accountability to the community, which is the focus of this group. Perhaps that is a topic more relevant to the work of the CWG Transition? Again, I may be missing something and would welcome the dots being connected. Regards, Keith Sent from my iPhone On Apr 15, 2015, at 2:12 PM, Adebunmi AKINBO <akinbo.adebunmi@gmail.com<mailto:akinbo.adebunmi@gmail.com>> wrote: +1 Lisse, Otieno. -Akinbo. On Wed, Apr 15, 2015 at 10:22 AM, Barrack Otieno <otieno.barrack@gmail.com<mailto:otieno.barrack@gmail.com>> wrote: I am in agreement with Dr. Lisse,i think the issues he raises are of fundamental importance and should be looked at in detail as we move forwad. It is better to get it right than as opposed to just focusing on a deliverable. Regards On 4/15/15, Dr Eberhard W Lisse <el@lisse.na<mailto:el@lisse.na>> wrote:
Dear Co-Chairs Thomas and Matheiu,
Can you please explain to you Co-Chair that the very point was that I need time to study the document and that I objected and still object against dealing with this in a cursory manner.
However, since he asked, I'll write under correction, that I don't think ccTLDs can be (in) a member organization unless all 253 bind themselves to this.
I have asked NUMEROUS times, to no avail, that we find out what the legal foundation of the USG's claim to the root/IANA function is. And we need to establish how this relates to each ccTLD. We may not be able to do this for all 253 (or how many they are) but there are a few broad categories we can classify them in.
For example (and just off the cuff and decidedly incomplete)
Before RFC1951 (1994) before ICANN During ICANN IDN ccTLDs
But, again, I object to being put under pressure of dealing with a complex matter and document in a superficial manner.
greetings, el
On 2015-04-15 04:16 , León Felipe Sánchez Ambía wrote:
Dear Eberhard,
Thanks for your comments.
Which content issues did you identify in the document? I will be happy to discuss and take back to the legal sub-team and the lawyers.
Best regards,
León
El 14/04/2015, a las 7:42, Dr Eberhard Lisse <el@lisse.NA<mailto:el@lisse.NA>> escribió:
Dear Co-Charis,
this is not directed against an individual or a group of individuals (inside the CCWG).
I can not participate in a meaningful deliberation on this unless I have time to properly review this document, not just being fed a large number of busy slides.
Never mind "decision".
There are some content issues (for example with regards to membership as far as ccTLDs are concerned) which flashed by.
This the wrong way of dealing with this, and I renew my objection for the record.
el
On 2015-04-14 13:29, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía wrote:
Dear Eberhard,
The slides were sent to everyone as soon as we got them.
I remind you that no substantial decision is made on any single call so you don’t have to worry on having to decide on anything on this call. We make second readings on substantial issues.
Best regards,
León
El 14/04/2015, a las 7:25, Dr Eberhard Lisse <el@lisse.NA<mailto:el@lisse.NA>> escribió:
Dear Co-Chairs,
Why have the slides of the law firm not been sent to us early enough to consider them, prior to being presented and discussed? Never mind decision making.
I object to this.
el -- Dr. Eberhard W. Lisse \ / Obstetrician & Gynaecologist (Saar) el@lisse.NA<mailto:el@lisse.NA> / * | Telephone: +264 81 124 6733 (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
-- Dr. Eberhard W. Lisse \ / Obstetrician & Gynaecologist (Saar) el@lisse.NA<mailto:el@lisse.NA> / * | Telephone: +264 81 124 6733 (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
-- Dr. Eberhard W. Lisse \ / Obstetrician & Gynaecologist (Saar) el@lisse.NA<mailto:el@lisse.NA> / * | Telephone: +264 81 124 6733 (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
-- Barrack O. Otieno +254721325277 +254-20-2498789 Skype: barrack.otieno http://www.otienobarrack.me.ke/ _______________________________________________ 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 -- Evang. Akinbo A. A. Cornerstone, Nigeria. +2348064464545, +2348089118151 | 2BAC511D. www.akinbo.ng<http://www.akinbo.ng> Member, Executive Board of Directors, Nigeria Internet Registration Association (NiRA) www.nira.org.ng<http://www.nira.org.ng/> | akinbo@nira.org.ng<mailto:akinbo@yips.org.ng> @niraworks Acting Chief Operating Officer, DNS Africa Magazine www.dnsafrica.org<http://www.dnsafrica.org/> | akinbo@dnsafrica.org<mailto:akinbo@dnsafrica.org> @dnsafrica National Convener, Nigerian Youth Coalition on Internet Governance (NG-YCIG) www.ycig.org.ng<http://www.nira.org.ng/> President, Young Internet Professionals (YiPS) www.yips.gnbo.com.ng<http://wwwyips.org.ng/> | akinbo@yips.org.ng<mailto:akinbo@yips.org.ng> The RedHub. 12, Afonka Odebunmi Street, Lagos State. http://www.theredhub.org/ National Focal Point ( Nigeria ) 2009-2011. Global Youth Coalition on HIV/AIDS (a program of TakingITGlobal) www.youthaidscoalition.org<http://www.youthaidscoalition.org> www.takingitglobal.com<http://www.takingitglobal.com> www.iaids.org<http://www.iaids.org> About me: http://profiles.tigweb.org/pscornerstone _______________________________________________ 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
+1 Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez +506 8837 7176 (New Number) Enviado desde mi iPhone
El abr 15, 2015, a las 8:29, Drazek, Keith <kdrazek@verisign.com> escribió:
Dear Eberhard, Akinbo and Sean,
While I agree this issue requires deliberate treatment, I have a few questions in response to points raised in this thread.
Why couldn't a subset of ccTLD members (those who have joined the ccNSO) collaborate to make the ccNSO a statutory member of ICANN? We're not talking about every registry (gTLD or ccTLD) or individual person who participates in ICANN becoming a direct member.
That some ccTLDs choose to not join the ccNSO shouldn't prevent those who have joined from cooperating to give the ccNSO greater oversight of ICANN's Board and staff. Or am I missing something? Please help me understand the specific ccTLD concern in this context.
If we're designing an accountability framework for ICANN and its community, how can we be expected to accommodate and incorporate the interests of self-determined outsiders other than to invite them to join the community and participate in its processes? In my view, anyone with interests impacted by ICANN should get involved and not sit outside looking in.
Also, Eberhard, I'm not clear on why the legal foundation for the USG's claim on the IANA functions/root is relevant to the discussion of ICANN's accountability to the community, which is the focus of this group. Perhaps that is a topic more relevant to the work of the CWG Transition? Again, I may be missing something and would welcome the dots being connected.
Regards, Keith
Sent from my iPhone
On Apr 15, 2015, at 2:12 PM, Adebunmi AKINBO <akinbo.adebunmi@gmail.com> wrote:
+1 Lisse, Otieno. -Akinbo.
On Wed, Apr 15, 2015 at 10:22 AM, Barrack Otieno <otieno.barrack@gmail.com> wrote: I am in agreement with Dr. Lisse,i think the issues he raises are of fundamental importance and should be looked at in detail as we move forwad. It is better to get it right than as opposed to just focusing on a deliverable.
Regards
On 4/15/15, Dr Eberhard W Lisse <el@lisse.na> wrote:
Dear Co-Chairs Thomas and Matheiu,
Can you please explain to you Co-Chair that the very point was that I need time to study the document and that I objected and still object against dealing with this in a cursory manner.
However, since he asked, I'll write under correction, that I don't think ccTLDs can be (in) a member organization unless all 253 bind themselves to this.
I have asked NUMEROUS times, to no avail, that we find out what the legal foundation of the USG's claim to the root/IANA function is. And we need to establish how this relates to each ccTLD. We may not be able to do this for all 253 (or how many they are) but there are a few broad categories we can classify them in.
For example (and just off the cuff and decidedly incomplete)
Before RFC1951 (1994) before ICANN During ICANN IDN ccTLDs
But, again, I object to being put under pressure of dealing with a complex matter and document in a superficial manner.
greetings, el
On 2015-04-15 04:16 , León Felipe Sánchez Ambía wrote:
Dear Eberhard,
Thanks for your comments.
Which content issues did you identify in the document? I will be happy to discuss and take back to the legal sub-team and the lawyers.
Best regards,
León
El 14/04/2015, a las 7:42, Dr Eberhard Lisse <el@lisse.NA> escribió:
Dear Co-Charis,
this is not directed against an individual or a group of individuals (inside the CCWG).
I can not participate in a meaningful deliberation on this unless I have time to properly review this document, not just being fed a large number of busy slides.
Never mind "decision".
There are some content issues (for example with regards to membership as far as ccTLDs are concerned) which flashed by.
This the wrong way of dealing with this, and I renew my objection for the record.
el
On 2015-04-14 13:29, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía wrote: > Dear Eberhard, > > The slides were sent to everyone as soon as we got them. > > I remind you that no substantial decision is made on any single > call so you don’t have to worry on having to decide on anything > on this call. We make second readings on substantial issues. > > > Best regards, > > > León > >> El 14/04/2015, a las 7:25, Dr Eberhard Lisse <el@lisse.NA> >> escribió: >> >> Dear Co-Chairs, >> >> Why have the slides of the law firm not been sent to us early >> enough to consider them, prior to being presented and discussed? >> Never mind decision making. >> >> I object to this. >> >> 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
-- 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
-- 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
-- Barrack O. Otieno +254721325277 +254-20-2498789 Skype: barrack.otieno http://www.otienobarrack.me.ke/ _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
-- Evang. Akinbo A. A. Cornerstone, Nigeria. +2348064464545, +2348089118151 | 2BAC511D. www.akinbo.ng
Member, Executive Board of Directors, Nigeria Internet Registration Association (NiRA) www.nira.org.ng | akinbo@nira.org.ng @niraworks
Acting Chief Operating Officer, DNS Africa Magazine www.dnsafrica.org | akinbo@dnsafrica.org @dnsafrica
National Convener, Nigerian Youth Coalition on Internet Governance (NG-YCIG) www.ycig.org.ng
President, Young Internet Professionals (YiPS) www.yips.gnbo.com.ng | akinbo@yips.org.ng
The RedHub. 12, Afonka Odebunmi Street, Lagos State. http://www.theredhub.org/
National Focal Point ( Nigeria ) 2009-2011. Global Youth Coalition on HIV/AIDS (a program of TakingITGlobal) www.youthaidscoalition.org www.takingitglobal.com www.iaids.org About me: http://profiles.tigweb.org/pscornerstone _______________________________________________ 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, This is not related to the transition, because they do revoke ccTLDs and then transfer them (formerly known as redelegation) already. The IANA Function department staff pressurize the Contacts, send boiler plate to the Board which nods the cases through without debate on the Consent Agenda, forward to the NTIA which runs a spelling checker on it and Verisign changes the root zone entry. There is no accountability whatsoever, of any kind to nobody. Nada, Nil, None. Not to the individual ccTLD Manager, not the ccNSO or to any ccTLD Community. They most certainly can not just come and say: "You ccTLD Manager must band together in a manner prescribed by us otherwise we don't listen to you". What does "greater oversight" mean? Even if the ccTLD Manager for (the non existing) .XX were a member of the ccNSO, that does not mean the ccNSO can act on his behalf, not even if specifically asked to do so, as there is no such ICANN/ccNSO policy. The GAC and gNSO act by CONSENSUS, the ccNSO would have to act by UNANIMITY of all 253 (or however many) ccTLD Managers (and not just ccNSO members) or in individual cases on instruction of the affected individual ccTLD Manager. And who takes responsibility if something goes wrong? ccTLD Managers do not have a multilateral relationship, it is even debatable if they have bilateral relationship to the IANA Function Manager or any relationship at all. Some of them existed many years before ICANN was created. What matters is what the legal basis is, upon which the IANA Function Manager purports to base their authority to act against a ccTLD Manager, not where it must be debated. And, we need to debate this with sufficient knowledge of the subject matter down to the details. I appreciate Keith stating he lacks that detailed knowledge, and my experience that this is the case for many members and observers. I must confess I lack the detailed insight into the gTLD processes, but therefor I keep out of this area. Even though I am part of AfriCANN (an ALAC initiative) I only engage there reluctantly and not often, because I run a ccTLD Manager even though I have some technical and development interests and experience. I have been trying to convey for quite a while now that it is wrong to try to create mechanisms when we don't know EXACTLY what we are dealing with and what the consequences will be. We need to start at the beginning, not in the middle. Not even just because we have a structure in place. greetings, el On 2015-04-15 14:29, Drazek, Keith wrote:
Dear Eberhard, Akinbo and Sean,
While I agree this issue requires deliberate treatment, I have a few questions in response to points raised in this thread.
Why couldn't a subset of ccTLD members (those who have joined the ccNSO) collaborate to make the ccNSO a statutory member of ICANN? We're not talking about every registry (gTLD or ccTLD) or individual person who participates in ICANN becoming a direct member.
That some ccTLDs choose to not join the ccNSO shouldn't prevent those who have joined from cooperating to give the ccNSO greater oversight of ICANN's Board and staff. Or am I missing something? Please help me understand the specific ccTLD concern in this context.
If we're designing an accountability framework for ICANN and its community, how can we be expected to accommodate and incorporate the interests of self-determined outsiders other than to invite them to join the community and participate in its processes? In my view, anyone with interests impacted by ICANN should get involved and not sit outside looking in.
Also, Eberhard, I'm not clear on why the legal foundation for the USG's claim on the IANA functions/root is relevant to the discussion of ICANN's accountability to the community, which is the focus of this group. Perhaps that is a topic more relevant to the work of the CWG Transition? Again, I may be missing something and would welcome the dots being connected.
Regards, Keith
Sent from my iPhone [...] -- Dr. Eberhard W. Lisse \ / Obstetrician & Gynaecologist (Saar) el@lisse.NA / * | Telephone: +264 81 124 6733 (cell) PO Box 8421 \ / Bachbrecht, Namibia ;____/
El, Your characterization of the due diligence process for delegations and re-delegations is inaccurate. The Board pays close attention to each and every one of these actions. Over time, a process has evolved which puts the majority of the burden on the staff, thereby resulting in checklist, but the Board does not blindly accept the paperwork and has pushed back or questioned the action if there is anything that appears amiss. That said, the Board does want to be in the position of making primary decisions about delegations and re-delegations, nor should it be. We need a more robust process. The Framework of Interpretation is one positive step in that direction. Steve Crocker Chair, ICANN Board of Directors On Apr 15, 2015, at 10:21 AM, Dr Eberhard Lisse <el@lisse.NA> wrote:
Dear Co-Chairs,
This is not related to the transition, because they do revoke ccTLDs and then transfer them (formerly known as redelegation) already.
The IANA Function department staff pressurize the Contacts, send boiler plate to the Board which nods the cases through without debate on the Consent Agenda, forward to the NTIA which runs a spelling checker on it and Verisign changes the root zone entry.
There is no accountability whatsoever, of any kind to nobody. Nada, Nil, None. Not to the individual ccTLD Manager, not the ccNSO or to any ccTLD Community.
They most certainly can not just come and say: "You ccTLD Manager must band together in a manner prescribed by us otherwise we don't listen to you".
What does "greater oversight" mean? Even if the ccTLD Manager for (the non existing) .XX were a member of the ccNSO, that does not mean the ccNSO can act on his behalf, not even if specifically asked to do so, as there is no such ICANN/ccNSO policy.
The GAC and gNSO act by CONSENSUS, the ccNSO would have to act by UNANIMITY of all 253 (or however many) ccTLD Managers (and not just ccNSO members) or in individual cases on instruction of the affected individual ccTLD Manager. And who takes responsibility if something goes wrong?
ccTLD Managers do not have a multilateral relationship, it is even debatable if they have bilateral relationship to the IANA Function Manager or any relationship at all. Some of them existed many years before ICANN was created.
What matters is what the legal basis is, upon which the IANA Function Manager purports to base their authority to act against a ccTLD Manager, not where it must be debated.
And, we need to debate this with sufficient knowledge of the subject matter down to the details.
I appreciate Keith stating he lacks that detailed knowledge, and my experience that this is the case for many members and observers.
I must confess I lack the detailed insight into the gTLD processes, but therefor I keep out of this area. Even though I am part of AfriCANN (an ALAC initiative) I only engage there reluctantly and not often, because I run a ccTLD Manager even though I have some technical and development interests and experience.
I have been trying to convey for quite a while now that it is wrong to try to create mechanisms when we don't know EXACTLY what we are dealing with and what the consequences will be.
We need to start at the beginning, not in the middle. Not even just because we have a structure in place.
greetings, el
On 2015-04-15 14:29, Drazek, Keith wrote:
Dear Eberhard, Akinbo and Sean,
While I agree this issue requires deliberate treatment, I have a few questions in response to points raised in this thread.
Why couldn't a subset of ccTLD members (those who have joined the ccNSO) collaborate to make the ccNSO a statutory member of ICANN? We're not talking about every registry (gTLD or ccTLD) or individual person who participates in ICANN becoming a direct member.
That some ccTLDs choose to not join the ccNSO shouldn't prevent those who have joined from cooperating to give the ccNSO greater oversight of ICANN's Board and staff. Or am I missing something? Please help me understand the specific ccTLD concern in this context.
If we're designing an accountability framework for ICANN and its community, how can we be expected to accommodate and incorporate the interests of self-determined outsiders other than to invite them to join the community and participate in its processes? In my view, anyone with interests impacted by ICANN should get involved and not sit outside looking in.
Also, Eberhard, I'm not clear on why the legal foundation for the USG's claim on the IANA functions/root is relevant to the discussion of ICANN's accountability to the community, which is the focus of this group. Perhaps that is a topic more relevant to the work of the CWG Transition? Again, I may be missing something and would welcome the dots being connected.
Regards, Keith
Sent from my iPhone [...] -- 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
Steve, I grant you, I like to formulate pointedly :-)-O el On 2015-04-15 15:27, Steve Crocker wrote:
El,
Your characterization of the due diligence process for delegations and re-delegations is inaccurate. The Board pays close attention to each and every one of these actions. Over time, a process has evolved which puts the majority of the burden on the staff, thereby resulting in checklist, but the Board does not blindly accept the paperwork and has pushed back or questioned the action if there is anything that appears amiss.
That said, the Board does want to be in the position of making primary decisions about delegations and re-delegations, nor should it be. We need a more robust process. The Framework of Interpretation is one positive step in that direction.
Steve Crocker Chair, ICANN Board of Directors
[Resending with a crucial word added, though I hope the intent was clear nonetheless.] El, Your characterization of the due diligence process for delegations and re-delegations is inaccurate. The Board pays close attention to each and every one of these actions. Over time, a process has evolved which puts the majority of the burden on the staff, thereby resulting in checklist, but the Board does not blindly accept the paperwork and has pushed back or questioned the action if there is anything that appears amiss. That said, the Board does NOT want to be in the position of making primary decisions about delegations and re-delegations, nor should it be. We need a more robust process. The Framework of Interpretation is one positive step in that direction. Steve Crocker Chair, ICANN Board of Directors On Apr 15, 2015, at 10:21 AM, Dr Eberhard Lisse <el@lisse.NA> wrote:
Dear Co-Chairs,
This is not related to the transition, because they do revoke ccTLDs and then transfer them (formerly known as redelegation) already.
The IANA Function department staff pressurize the Contacts, send boiler plate to the Board which nods the cases through without debate on the Consent Agenda, forward to the NTIA which runs a spelling checker on it and Verisign changes the root zone entry.
There is no accountability whatsoever, of any kind to nobody. Nada, Nil, None. Not to the individual ccTLD Manager, not the ccNSO or to any ccTLD Community.
They most certainly can not just come and say: "You ccTLD Manager must band together in a manner prescribed by us otherwise we don't listen to you".
What does "greater oversight" mean? Even if the ccTLD Manager for (the non existing) .XX were a member of the ccNSO, that does not mean the ccNSO can act on his behalf, not even if specifically asked to do so, as there is no such ICANN/ccNSO policy.
The GAC and gNSO act by CONSENSUS, the ccNSO would have to act by UNANIMITY of all 253 (or however many) ccTLD Managers (and not just ccNSO members) or in individual cases on instruction of the affected individual ccTLD Manager. And who takes responsibility if something goes wrong?
ccTLD Managers do not have a multilateral relationship, it is even debatable if they have bilateral relationship to the IANA Function Manager or any relationship at all. Some of them existed many years before ICANN was created.
What matters is what the legal basis is, upon which the IANA Function Manager purports to base their authority to act against a ccTLD Manager, not where it must be debated.
And, we need to debate this with sufficient knowledge of the subject matter down to the details.
I appreciate Keith stating he lacks that detailed knowledge, and my experience that this is the case for many members and observers.
I must confess I lack the detailed insight into the gTLD processes, but therefor I keep out of this area. Even though I am part of AfriCANN (an ALAC initiative) I only engage there reluctantly and not often, because I run a ccTLD Manager even though I have some technical and development interests and experience.
I have been trying to convey for quite a while now that it is wrong to try to create mechanisms when we don't know EXACTLY what we are dealing with and what the consequences will be.
We need to start at the beginning, not in the middle. Not even just because we have a structure in place.
greetings, el
On 2015-04-15 14:29, Drazek, Keith wrote:
Dear Eberhard, Akinbo and Sean,
While I agree this issue requires deliberate treatment, I have a few questions in response to points raised in this thread.
Why couldn't a subset of ccTLD members (those who have joined the ccNSO) collaborate to make the ccNSO a statutory member of ICANN? We're not talking about every registry (gTLD or ccTLD) or individual person who participates in ICANN becoming a direct member.
That some ccTLDs choose to not join the ccNSO shouldn't prevent those who have joined from cooperating to give the ccNSO greater oversight of ICANN's Board and staff. Or am I missing something? Please help me understand the specific ccTLD concern in this context.
If we're designing an accountability framework for ICANN and its community, how can we be expected to accommodate and incorporate the interests of self-determined outsiders other than to invite them to join the community and participate in its processes? In my view, anyone with interests impacted by ICANN should get involved and not sit outside looking in.
Also, Eberhard, I'm not clear on why the legal foundation for the USG's claim on the IANA functions/root is relevant to the discussion of ICANN's accountability to the community, which is the focus of this group. Perhaps that is a topic more relevant to the work of the CWG Transition? Again, I may be missing something and would welcome the dots being connected.
Regards, Keith
Sent from my iPhone [...] -- 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
Yes, it was. But, you agree, that this is an Accountability issue, ie one for the CCWG? el -- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini
On Apr 16, 2015, at 18:49, Steve Crocker <Steve@shinkuro.com> wrote:
[Resending with a crucial word added, though I hope the intent was clear nonetheless.]
El,
Your characterization of the due diligence process for delegations and re-delegations is inaccurate. The Board pays close attention to each and every one of these actions. Over time, a process has evolved which puts the majority of the burden on the staff, thereby resulting in checklist, but the Board does not blindly accept the paperwork and has pushed back or questioned the action if there is anything that appears amiss.
That said, the Board does NOT want to be in the position of making primary decisions about delegations and re-delegations, nor should it be. We need a more robust process. The Framework of Interpretation is one positive step in that direction.
Steve Crocker Chair, ICANN Board of Directors
Hi Drazak, As it concerns naming; I don't run any registry neither am i employed by any organisation in that line (including cctld) except being a registrant on both TLD categories plus also being an internet user. I rely a lot on things that are factually documented/proven, hence i make effort to ask for references and also ask questions that could help me understand why some have certain view. I wholeheartedly share your line of thought and i would appreciate if this helps improve the way we individually approach issues in this WG. Regards On Wed, Apr 15, 2015 at 2:29 PM, Drazek, Keith <kdrazek@verisign.com> wrote:
Dear Eberhard, Akinbo and Sean,
While I agree this issue requires deliberate treatment, I have a few questions in response to points raised in this thread.
Why couldn't a subset of ccTLD members (those who have joined the ccNSO) collaborate to make the ccNSO a statutory member of ICANN? We're not talking about every registry (gTLD or ccTLD) or individual person who participates in ICANN becoming a direct member.
That some ccTLDs choose to not join the ccNSO shouldn't prevent those who have joined from cooperating to give the ccNSO greater oversight of ICANN's Board and staff. Or am I missing something? Please help me understand the specific ccTLD concern in this context.
If we're designing an accountability framework for ICANN and its community, how can we be expected to accommodate and incorporate the interests of self-determined outsiders other than to invite them to join the community and participate in its processes? In my view, anyone with interests impacted by ICANN should get involved and not sit outside looking in.
Also, Eberhard, I'm not clear on why the legal foundation for the USG's claim on the IANA functions/root is relevant to the discussion of ICANN's accountability to the community, which is the focus of this group. Perhaps that is a topic more relevant to the work of the CWG Transition? Again, I may be missing something and would welcome the dots being connected.
Regards, Keith
Sent from my iPhone
On Apr 15, 2015, at 2:12 PM, Adebunmi AKINBO <akinbo.adebunmi@gmail.com> wrote:
+1 Lisse, Otieno. -Akinbo.
On Wed, Apr 15, 2015 at 10:22 AM, Barrack Otieno <otieno.barrack@gmail.com
wrote:
I am in agreement with Dr. Lisse,i think the issues he raises are of fundamental importance and should be looked at in detail as we move forwad. It is better to get it right than as opposed to just focusing on a deliverable.
Regards
On 4/15/15, Dr Eberhard W Lisse <el@lisse.na> wrote:
Dear Co-Chairs Thomas and Matheiu,
Can you please explain to you Co-Chair that the very point was that I need time to study the document and that I objected and still object against dealing with this in a cursory manner.
However, since he asked, I'll write under correction, that I don't think ccTLDs can be (in) a member organization unless all 253 bind themselves to this.
I have asked NUMEROUS times, to no avail, that we find out what the legal foundation of the USG's claim to the root/IANA function is. And we need to establish how this relates to each ccTLD. We may not be able to do this for all 253 (or how many they are) but there are a few broad categories we can classify them in.
For example (and just off the cuff and decidedly incomplete)
Before RFC1951 (1994) before ICANN During ICANN IDN ccTLDs
But, again, I object to being put under pressure of dealing with a complex matter and document in a superficial manner.
greetings, el
On 2015-04-15 04:16 , León Felipe Sánchez Ambía wrote:
Dear Eberhard,
Thanks for your comments.
Which content issues did you identify in the document? I will be happy to discuss and take back to the legal sub-team and the lawyers.
Best regards,
León
El 14/04/2015, a las 7:42, Dr Eberhard Lisse <el@lisse.NA> escribió:
Dear Co-Charis,
this is not directed against an individual or a group of individuals (inside the CCWG).
I can not participate in a meaningful deliberation on this unless I have time to properly review this document, not just being fed a large number of busy slides.
Never mind "decision".
There are some content issues (for example with regards to membership as far as ccTLDs are concerned) which flashed by.
This the wrong way of dealing with this, and I renew my objection for the record.
el
On 2015-04-14 13:29, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía wrote:
Dear Eberhard,
The slides were sent to everyone as soon as we got them.
I remind you that no substantial decision is made on any single call so you don’t have to worry on having to decide on anything on this call. We make second readings on substantial issues.
Best regards,
León
> El 14/04/2015, a las 7:25, Dr Eberhard Lisse <el@lisse.NA> > escribió: > > Dear Co-Chairs, > > Why have the slides of the law firm not been sent to us early > enough to consider them, prior to being presented and discussed? > Never mind decision making. > > I object to this. > > 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
-- 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
-- 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
-- Barrack O. Otieno +254721325277 +254-20-2498789 Skype: barrack.otieno http://www.otienobarrack.me.ke/ _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
-- *Evang. Akinbo A. A. Cornerstone, Nigeria.* +2348064464545, +2348089118151 | 2BAC511D. www.akinbo.ng
*Member, Executive Board of Directors*, Nigeria Internet Registration Association (NiRA) www.nira.org.ng | akinbo@nira.org.ng <akinbo@yips.org.ng> @niraworks
*Acting Chief Operating Officer,* DNS Africa Magazine www.dnsafrica.org | akinbo@dnsafrica.org @dnsafrica
*National Convener,* Nigerian Youth Coalition on Internet Governance (NG-YCIG) www.ycig.org.ng <http://www.nira.org.ng/>
*President,* Young Internet Professionals (YiPS) www.yips.gnbo.com.ng <http://wwwyips.org.ng/> | akinbo@yips.org.ng
*The RedHub.* 12, Afonka Odebunmi Street, Lagos State. http://www.theredhub.org/
*National Focal Point ( Nigeria ) 2009-2011.* Global Youth Coalition on HIV/AIDS (a program of TakingITGlobal) www.youthaidscoalition.org www.takingitglobal.com www.iaids.org About me: http://profiles.tigweb.org/pscornerstone
_______________________________________________ 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
-- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng <http://www.fuoye.edu.ng> Mobile: +2348035233535**alt email: <http://goog_1872880453>seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng <seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng>* The key to understanding is humility - my view !
Dear Allé, I also support Dr. EL and is of the same view .In addition I support him as mentioned in his previous message why the legal firm did not provide these slide much in adavance of the conference call. I also do not agree with the tone nor with the way the legal firm replied to the questions. We should work closely , freindly, with mutual respect and spirit of civility Kavouss 2015-04-15 17:20 GMT+02:00 Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com>:
Hi Drazak,
As it concerns naming; I don't run any registry neither am i employed by any organisation in that line (including cctld) except being a registrant on both TLD categories plus also being an internet user. I rely a lot on things that are factually documented/proven, hence i make effort to ask for references and also ask questions that could help me understand why some have certain view. I wholeheartedly share your line of thought and i would appreciate if this helps improve the way we individually approach issues in this WG.
Regards
On Wed, Apr 15, 2015 at 2:29 PM, Drazek, Keith <kdrazek@verisign.com> wrote:
Dear Eberhard, Akinbo and Sean,
While I agree this issue requires deliberate treatment, I have a few questions in response to points raised in this thread.
Why couldn't a subset of ccTLD members (those who have joined the ccNSO) collaborate to make the ccNSO a statutory member of ICANN? We're not talking about every registry (gTLD or ccTLD) or individual person who participates in ICANN becoming a direct member.
That some ccTLDs choose to not join the ccNSO shouldn't prevent those who have joined from cooperating to give the ccNSO greater oversight of ICANN's Board and staff. Or am I missing something? Please help me understand the specific ccTLD concern in this context.
If we're designing an accountability framework for ICANN and its community, how can we be expected to accommodate and incorporate the interests of self-determined outsiders other than to invite them to join the community and participate in its processes? In my view, anyone with interests impacted by ICANN should get involved and not sit outside looking in.
Also, Eberhard, I'm not clear on why the legal foundation for the USG's claim on the IANA functions/root is relevant to the discussion of ICANN's accountability to the community, which is the focus of this group. Perhaps that is a topic more relevant to the work of the CWG Transition? Again, I may be missing something and would welcome the dots being connected.
Regards, Keith
Sent from my iPhone
On Apr 15, 2015, at 2:12 PM, Adebunmi AKINBO <akinbo.adebunmi@gmail.com> wrote:
+1 Lisse, Otieno. -Akinbo.
On Wed, Apr 15, 2015 at 10:22 AM, Barrack Otieno < otieno.barrack@gmail.com> wrote:
I am in agreement with Dr. Lisse,i think the issues he raises are of fundamental importance and should be looked at in detail as we move forwad. It is better to get it right than as opposed to just focusing on a deliverable.
Regards
On 4/15/15, Dr Eberhard W Lisse <el@lisse.na> wrote:
Dear Co-Chairs Thomas and Matheiu,
Can you please explain to you Co-Chair that the very point was that I need time to study the document and that I objected and still object against dealing with this in a cursory manner.
However, since he asked, I'll write under correction, that I don't think ccTLDs can be (in) a member organization unless all 253 bind themselves to this.
I have asked NUMEROUS times, to no avail, that we find out what the legal foundation of the USG's claim to the root/IANA function is. And we need to establish how this relates to each ccTLD. We may not be able to do this for all 253 (or how many they are) but there are a few broad categories we can classify them in.
For example (and just off the cuff and decidedly incomplete)
Before RFC1951 (1994) before ICANN During ICANN IDN ccTLDs
But, again, I object to being put under pressure of dealing with a complex matter and document in a superficial manner.
greetings, el
On 2015-04-15 04:16 , León Felipe Sánchez Ambía wrote:
Dear Eberhard,
Thanks for your comments.
Which content issues did you identify in the document? I will be happy to discuss and take back to the legal sub-team and the lawyers.
Best regards,
León
El 14/04/2015, a las 7:42, Dr Eberhard Lisse <el@lisse.NA> escribió:
Dear Co-Charis,
this is not directed against an individual or a group of individuals (inside the CCWG).
I can not participate in a meaningful deliberation on this unless I have time to properly review this document, not just being fed a large number of busy slides.
Never mind "decision".
There are some content issues (for example with regards to membership as far as ccTLDs are concerned) which flashed by.
This the wrong way of dealing with this, and I renew my objection for the record.
el
On 2015-04-14 13:29, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía wrote: > Dear Eberhard, > > The slides were sent to everyone as soon as we got them. > > I remind you that no substantial decision is made on any single > call so you don’t have to worry on having to decide on anything > on this call. We make second readings on substantial issues. > > > Best regards, > > > León > >> El 14/04/2015, a las 7:25, Dr Eberhard Lisse <el@lisse.NA> >> escribió: >> >> Dear Co-Chairs, >> >> Why have the slides of the law firm not been sent to us early >> enough to consider them, prior to being presented and discussed? >> Never mind decision making. >> >> I object to this. >> >> 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
-- 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
-- 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
-- Barrack O. Otieno +254721325277 +254-20-2498789 Skype: barrack.otieno http://www.otienobarrack.me.ke/ _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
-- *Evang. Akinbo A. A. Cornerstone, Nigeria.* +2348064464545, +2348089118151 | 2BAC511D. www.akinbo.ng
*Member, Executive Board of Directors*, Nigeria Internet Registration Association (NiRA) www.nira.org.ng | akinbo@nira.org.ng <akinbo@yips.org.ng> @niraworks
*Acting Chief Operating Officer,* DNS Africa Magazine www.dnsafrica.org | akinbo@dnsafrica.org @dnsafrica
*National Convener,* Nigerian Youth Coalition on Internet Governance (NG-YCIG) www.ycig.org.ng <http://www.nira.org.ng/>
*President,* Young Internet Professionals (YiPS) www.yips.gnbo.com.ng <http://wwwyips.org.ng/> | akinbo@yips.org.ng
*The RedHub.* 12, Afonka Odebunmi Street, Lagos State. http://www.theredhub.org/
*National Focal Point ( Nigeria ) 2009-2011.* Global Youth Coalition on HIV/AIDS (a program of TakingITGlobal) www.youthaidscoalition.org www.takingitglobal.com www.iaids.org About me: http://profiles.tigweb.org/pscornerstone
_______________________________________________ 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
-- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng <http://www.fuoye.edu.ng> Mobile: +2348035233535**alt email: <http://goog_1872880453>seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng <seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng>*
The key to understanding is humility - my view !
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
participants (10)
-
"Carlos Raúl G." -
Adebunmi AKINBO -
Barrack Otieno -
Dr Eberhard Lisse -
Dr Eberhard W Lisse
-
Drazek, Keith -
Kavouss Arasteh -
León Felipe Sánchez Ambía -
Seun Ojedeji -
Steve Crocker