[CCWG-ACCT] Clarification about Greg's response

[Seun Ojedeji]

Dear Co-Chairs,

I figured I should create a new thread for my question to avoid any
mis-understanding as my question is not in response to any of the 4
"jurisdiction questions" but a clarification on scope of the jurisdiction
sub-group with respect to the WS1 proposal.

I look forward to Greg's response.

Regards

On Wed, Dec 14, 2016 at 5:26 PM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Dear Co-Chairs,
>
> As a follow-up to my question on the call and based on Greg's response
> which I think may be beyond the jurisdiction scope as stipulated in the WS1
> proposal. I like to get further clarity for the record.
>
> Let me re-state my question again: "is change of ICANN's current
> jurisdiction of incorporation open for debate within WS2 hence can be an(or
> one of the) outcome from the jurisdiction sub-group"?
>
> Greg's Response was "somewhat yes" - if there is an issue that warrants it
> then it will be recommended.
>
> While I have no problem leaving such option open for discussion in future
> (perhaps by other group even though it's been discussed significantly in
> the past), and ofcourse the actions of the new US govt could trigger such
> need especially if the ICANN Board is convinced as such but that is not the
> case as as today.
>
> I am concerned that the sub-group on jurisdiction seem to imply place of
> incorporation is within their scope hence may probably be expending
> resources on that discussion point. Resources which includes volunteer time
> and most importantly legal working hours which isn't cheap from experience
> ;-). In addition, the unnecessary tension(most importantly the political
> ones) that this would create cannot be under estimated - ICANN just had a
> major structural reform and should be given time to settle and live a
> normal life for once ;-).
>
> I will appreciate if Greg could confirm whether i have parsed his response
> accurately and also provide reference to appropriate section of WS1
> proposal to support his response.
>
> Regards
>
> Sent from my LG G4
> Kindly excuse brevity and typos
>
> On 14 Dec 2016 08:44, "Mathieu Weill" <mathieu.weill at afnic.fr> wrote:
>
>> Dear Colleagues,
>>
>>
>>
>> On behalf of the jurisdiction subgroup rapporteurs, please find attached
>> two documents that will be discussed in the upcoming plenary.
>>
>>
>>
>> Best
>>
>> Mathieu
>>
>>
>>
>> *De :* Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com]
>> *Envoyé :* mercredi 14 décembre 2016 07:37
>> *À :* Mathieu.Weill at afnic.fr; León Felipe Sánchez Ambía; Thomas Rickert;
>> acct-staff at icann.org
>> *Objet :* Jurisdiction Proposed Questions and Poll Results
>>
>>
>>
>> ​Co-Chairs and Staff:
>>
>>
>>
>> The Jurisdiction Subgroup is considering distributing a questionnaire.
>> The first attachment shows the proposed preamble (introduction to the
>> questions) and each of the questions proposed in the Subgroup.
>>
>>
>>
>> The second attachment shows the results of a poll taken in the Subgroup
>> to get a sense of support in the group for each of the questions.
>>
>>
>>
>> These documents should be sent to the CCWG Plenary for discussion.
>>
>>
>>
>> Greg
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>> Accountability-Cross-Community at 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 at fuoye.edu.ng
<seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng>*

Bringing another down does not take you up - think about your action!
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20161214/9c9c6528/attachment-0001.html>