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

[Greg Shatan]

All,

There are too many issues and specific points raised in this thread to deal
with in a single email.  But the thread as a whole raises some overarching
concerns.  Please consider the following thoughts.

We need to pay attention to how we engage with each other, and we need to
emphasize engagement on ideas and substance.

Based on my participation in a number of working groups over the years,
I've observed the following:  In order to develop broad support for
positions or decisions in any working group or subgroup (including this
one), it is necessary for participants to strive to do three things:

-- *Listen*: Take the time to understand the views of others in the group;
don't dismiss views without considering their substance
-- *Persuade*:  Try to persuade others (through fact and logic) why your
view makes sense and should be adopted; don't attempt to impose your view
(e.g., by saying something "must" be done)
-- *Compromise*: For a position to get broad support, it will need to
reconcile opposing viewpoints.  Participants will often need to move away
from initial positions and "absolutes" to find common ground; the ultimate
result may not be exactly what any participant or group of participants
want.

Without listening, persuasion has no chance to work.  Without trying to
persuade, others will not move to embrace your views.  Without compromise,
we will not arrive at positions that have broad support.

The focus needs to be on facts, on ideas, on reasoning together.  Focusing
on identities and not on ideas will not lead to success.  Playing up
divisions based on identities does not lead to common ground.

In my view, we need to work together as a group and concentrate on
substance in order to be productive.

Thank you for considering these thoughts.

Greg






On Sat, Dec 24, 2016 at 5:19 PM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>
wrote:

> 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
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20161225/7349cf9a/attachment-0001.html>