Please accept my apologies, I willoat likely not make the call tonight. el -- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPhone 5s

Dear Thomas, Mathieu, and other co-chairs, if any, i.e. through the (co-)chair(s), can you please ensure that commenters demonstrate that they have the required level of insight into the matters they comment on, by, inter alia, consistent use of the correct terminology down to the level of details? A Registry is a database, i.e. a "thing", not a person (juristic or natural). The correct (agreed upon by the Framework of Interpretation Working Group, and unanimously approved by the ccNSO) term in the context of ccTLDs is "ccTLD Manager". It is the ccTLD Managers who the IANA Function Manager (!) needs to formalize its relationship with, once the alleged foundation on which the USG/NTIA base their claim to the root (the so called Teranode Contract) which is flimsy at best and never formally accepted by most, falls away. As soon as no formal relationship can be claimed any longer, the IANA Function Manager becomes a third party interfering with the ccTLD Manger's (pre-existing) rights. Hence my previous post about ccTLD Managers without such a "new" contract to be at least not treated worse than those entering into one. This is where I agree very strongly with Bruce Tonkin that ccNSO developed policy may be be very helpful. And I do not wish to use this intervention to introduce the concept of property (intangible, intellectual or otherwise) into the debate. Thank you co-chairs, el Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini

On Dec 31, 2014, at 02:53, David Johnson <davidr.johnson@verizon.net> wrote:

No -- no registry would be required to sign such a contact.

Sent from my iPad

...

On Dec 30, 2014, at 1:23 PM, Dr Eberhard W Lisse <epilisse@gmail.com> wrote:

So,

all ccTLD Managers without a contract must get one.

el

-- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPhone 5s

...

On Dec 30, 2014, at 04:01, DAVID JOHNSON <davidr.johnson@verizon.net> wrote:

The suggestion is a new contract, which would revoke inconsistent terms in current contracts.

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

For the record and to avoid any misunderstanding, this is the point. A ccTLD Manager does not require third party input, never mind consensus, nor can indeed any third party, never mind consensus, affect an individual ccTLD (Manager) unless the ccTLD Manager agrees to that. For the avoidance of doubt, NA-NiC does not. ccTLD Managers have BILATERAL relationships with the IANA Function Manager and/or ICANN, and these are hardly defined, if at all. They may not or may be members of the ccNSO, in which case they are bound by ccNSO Developed Policy, as long as they are members of the ccNSO (only). I am not aware of any such Policy Development Process, past or present. And for all that it is worth, neither was I (or many other ccTLD Managers) party to any such "CWG discussions" though I have filed this position in the comments. Right or Wrong, I am not in doubt here about the fiduciary responsibility I have to my company. greetings, el Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini

On Dec 31, 2014, at 09:33, Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr> wrote:

Eberhard, all,

For the record, and to avoid any misunderstanding, Eberhard statement below is not a consensus view amongst ccTLDs. This appears quite clearly in the CWG discussions.

Best Mathieu

Le 30/12/2014 19:23, Dr Eberhard W Lisse a écrit :

...

So,

all ccTLD Managers without a contract must get one.

el

-- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPhone 5s

On Dec 30, 2014, at 04:01, DAVID JOHNSON <davidr.johnson@verizon.net> wrote:

...

The suggestion is a new contract, which would revoke inconsistent terms in current contracts.

drj [...]