Thank you very much. so next week 3 calls (Tuesday, Thursday, Friday, the latter of which I could not make even if I wanted to (see below))? The following week another three (Monday, and 2 on Tuesday)? More than one call per week is already difficult enough to absorb, but three? And then two on one day? When we are already spending too much time on process and very little on substance? This is not conducive to thoughtful deliberation and as I have said numerous times I am opposed to rushing things through just because of a perceived deadline, which in our case does not even exist in reality. I object to this. And while we are at it, I have asked NUMEROUS times to have the legal foundation of the USG's claim to the root and/or the IANA function researched by our legal advisers. I was told it would be done, but it has not from what I can see and my repeated requests in this regards have been ignored by the Co-Chairs. I have made several requests/suggestions in how to deal with the GAO, which the Co-Chairs do not agree with. Be that as it may, I reserve the rights to communicate my thoughts to the GAO as they have explicitly requested/suggested. I have extremely serious concerns about at least the passage of the German collaborative white paper (or whatever it is called), which as far as ccTLDs are concerned is totally our of order and unacceptable, in as much it suggests that ccTLD/ccNSO policy being taken over by governments (which as we all know is opposed to the USG's stated intent. The GAC Representative of Denmark has proposed in Istanbul during the ad-hoc Stress Test Breakfast, what I understand to be a total removal of ccNSO's policy making powers, in favor of governments deciding. Using the words "Out with the Old" he stated that the RFCs must be done away with. I am not clear whether this is the position of the Representative, his government or the GAC, but when read together with the above, this is not acceptable to me. I have not that many concerns with regards to Delegation of a ccTLD (after establishment), including a Transfer of an exsiting ccTLD. But as far as Revocation of an incumbent ccTLD Manager is concerned, I have stated numerous times, that we need to preserve the existing rights of incumbent ccTLD Managers. This is NOT negotiable. And the best way of doing this is by way of the Framework of Interpretation Principles. Mr Chehade has apparently in public (and on the record) accused senior ccTLD managers of not knowing how the IANA functions work. As a ccTLD Manager with 24 years uninterrupted service I tend to agree that I do not know how the IANA function is operated by the current Function Manager (ICANN), though I do have a really good idea how it SHOULD be operated. Therefor I have requested that Mr Chehade explain to us how this works. I can not find any feedback on this issue. Unless these issues are addressed to my satisfaction (and I am not saying that they must be resolved necessarily to my satisfaction) I shall, as a ccNSO appointed member, be formally objecting to any output of the CCWG-Accountability. I am circulating this to the usual ccTLD lists as well. greetings, el On 2015-04-08 12:10, Brenda Brewer wrote:

Hi Eberhard,

Please see attachment in pdf format.

Best, Brenda [...]

-- Dr. Eberhard W. Lisse \ / Obstetrician & Gynaecologist (Saar) el@lisse.NA / * | Telephone: +264 81 124 6733 (cell) PO Box 8421 \ / Bachbrecht, Namibia ;____/