[CCWG-ACCT] Caption Notes-Recordings-Transcript links for Jurisdiction Meeting #35 - 14 June 2017

Greg Shatan gregshatanipc at gmail.com
Thu Jun 15 21:39:38 UTC 2017


Thank you for your views.  Your proposal was put before the group at the
beginning of the call (as you requested); it did not garner substantial
support.  The Co-Chairs have been monitoring this Subgroup and I think
their statement, as offered by Thomas, speaks for itself.  A request for
those opposed to the Co-Chairs' conclusion was made on the call, and we
recorded four opposed.

I also hope that we can return to substantive discussions now and avoid
rehashing this decision or the underlying concepts yet again.


On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 3:32 PM, <Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch> wrote:

> Dear Greg and all,
> Sorry to see that another call was lost in preempting hypothetical
> remedies, before even a full discussion about the issues has taken place
> (some of the inputs to the questionnaire have not even been presented yet -
> and the cases are far from having been finalised).
> Especially the issue of taylor-made protections against unwarranted
> interference would merit a real debate.
> But after several attempts to foreclose some quite improbable scenarios it
> seems that this preemptive action has succeeded, albeit in awkward
> circumstances.
> I personally feel that the approach I propose(d) -which is what we had
> agreed before after initial debates- would have been much more efficient in
> our time-management, would have followed the logical order of analyzing
> first issues and -being factual and objective- would have avoided this
> absolutely unnecessary divisiveness.
> Hope that we may at last return to substantive discussions soon and that
> the Plenary is wise enough not to close the door to considering sensible,
> commonly agreed solutions, if our future analysis of the issues reveals
> them appropriate.
> kind regards
> Jorge
> ________________________________
> Von: MSSI Secretariat <mssi-secretariat at icann.org>
> Datum: 15. Juni 2017 um 19:47:01 MESZ
> An: CCWG Accountability <accountability-cross-community at icann.org>
> Cc: ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org <ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org>
> Betreff: [CCWG-ACCT] Caption Notes-Recordings-Transcript links for
> Jurisdiction Meeting #35 - 14 June 2017
> Hello all,
> The caption notes, recordings and transcripts for CCWG Accountability WS2
> Jurisdiction Subgroup Meeting #35– 14 June 2017 will be available here:
> https://community.icann.org/x/GSDwAw
> A copy of the action items and raw caption notes may be found below.
> With kind regards,
> Brenda Brewer, Projects & Operations Assistant
> Multistakeholder Strategy & Strategic Initiatives (MSSI)
> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
> [cid:image001.png at 01D2E5D5.73E41D50]
> Skype:  brenda.brewer.icann
> Phone:  1-310-745-1107
> Raw Captioning Notes
> Please note that these are the unofficial transcript. Official transcript
> will be posted 2-3 days after the call
>   *   Word Doc<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/
> 66068505/Jurisdicton_0614ICANN1300UTC.RTF?version=1&modificationDate=
> 1497462625000&api=v2>
>   *   PDF<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/
> 66068505/Jurisdiction_0614ICANN1300UTC.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=
> 1497462637000&api=v2>
> Decisions:
>   *   Thomas Rickert for the CCWG-Accountability Co-Chairs, We have
> concluded that the Jurisdiction sub-group will take Californian
> jurisdiction as a base line for all its recommendations, and that the
> sub-team not pursue recommendations to change ICANN's jurisdiction of
> incorporation, location of headquarters or seek immunity for ICANN.  With
> this decision we are recognizing that there is no possibility that there
> would be consensus for an immunity based concept or a change of place of
> incorporation.  As such I would establish in the minutes of this call that
> we focus on the solution that gets most traction.  Recognizing that this
> does not eliminate, as I think Avri said during last week's call, that we
> can discuss all issues that might arise during the deliberations.  But that
> we actually focus on the status quo being Californian law and place of
> incorporation. and work on solutions that are founded on this.
> Action Items:
>   *   (none)
> Requests:
>   *   (none)
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20170615/98121ede/attachment.html>

More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list