[CCWG-ACCT] RES: Jurisdiction Proposed Questions and Poll Results

[Kavouss Arasteh]

Dear Sam,
Thank you again for your good will and kind effort to find a solution for
the matter but the solution is not postpose dealing with the same.
As I mentioned earlier. if the issue is not properly responded the entire
WS2 would fail.
This is a fundamental ,crucial and core issue and MUST be responded I am
aganist NO CHANGE
Regards
Kavouss

2016-12-24 21:22 GMT+01:00 Sam Lanfranco <sam at lanfranco.net>:

> Colleagues,
>
> This is a short attempt is my last effort to get to the essence of the
> jurisdiction issue, an issue that is both complex and contentious. There
> are two views at play here. I will try to capture them in simple terms,
> without repeating the arguments supporting either position.
>
> One is that jurisdiction is such a hot button issue that, as Philip Corwin
> argues, raising it as a major issue in its own right would “…further
> inflame a debate that cannot end in consensus agreement, as there is a
> fundamental incompatibility between altering ICANN’s status as California
> non-profit and effectively exercising the empowered community
> accountability powers that accompanied the IANA transition and were
> designed to operate within that specific legal framework.” . The other
> view, stated by Pedro Ivo Ferraz da Silva, is that the topic of
> jurisdiction was postponed by the CCWG because “the majority of this group
> thought it was not appropriate to deal with it in the pre-transition period
> due to time constraints”, and I might add because it is both complex and
> contentious.
>
> Had the issues not been complex and contentious, either (a) something like
> Philip Corwin’s push for “ICANN’s permanent status as a US-based non-profit
> corporation…enshrined in a Fundamental Bylaw prior to the completion of
> WS1” would be up for discussion, or (b) the NETmundial call for “…ICANN’s
> internationalization and not becoming an intergovernmental organization”
> would have built some options based on seeking answers to a list of
> relevant jurisdiction questions. At this point we would have some progress
> on what, in the longer term, is the way forward. None of that has happened.
>
> As well, I agree with the view is that “Until this matter is resolved with
> finality it will remain a scab to be constantly picked at, always
> threatening to become a festering sore on the body politic of IG”. Philip
> Corwin and others worry about the downside risks to any rash attempt to
> recommend a change in ICANN’s organizational jurisdiction. Others see the
> act of not addressing it as a partisan effort to “sweep the issue under the
> rug” and maintain a self-interested status quo. In the absence of a proper
> discussion around this issue the “festering sore” will remain. Stakeholders
> will be embroiled in ill framed disputes that inflame positions, and do not
> lead to better insights on how ICANN’s residence and jurisdiction issues
> are addressed. Without dialogue even the status quo will become an
> increasingly untenable position.
>
> My view is that current CCWG discussion should include discussion about
> where and how that jurisdiction discussion should occur. The jurisdiction
> issue is a challenge, an exciting opportunity for ICANN to pioneer new
> ground, and more broadly an opportunity to further refine global
> multistakeholder engagement in bottom-up policy making. In terms of ICANN’s
> decision making speed this will require a longer time frame than that for
> the current CCWG on Accountability, although advice on how to this
> discussion should be constituted is a legitimate agenda item for the
> current Accountability CCWG.
>
> Sam Lanfranco  npoc/csih
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20161224/74546018/attachment.html>