[CCWG-ACCT] [Ws2-jurisdiction] Caption Notes-Recordings-Transcript links for Jurisdiction Meeting #35 - 14 June 2017
Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch
Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch
Thu Jun 15 22:06:58 UTC 2017
sorry, but this sentence was cut:
"Hence your assertion that it did not "garner substantial support"... is a bit strange."
Normally in the past when the groups were divided we would habe done multiple straw polls to see the level of traction... and chad come up with refined versions trying to find consensus positions. This I find awkward, especially after seeing such division amongst the speakers who came after Thomas...
good evening all
Von: Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch <Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch>
Datum: 15. Juni 2017 um 23:59:14 MESZ
An: gregshatanipc at gmail.com <gregshatanipc at gmail.com>
Cc: ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org <ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org>, mssi-secretariat at icann.org <mssi-secretariat at icann.org>, accountability-cross-community at icann.org <accountability-cross-community at icann.org>
Betreff: Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] [CCWG-ACCT] Caption Notes-Recordings-Transcript links for Jurisdiction Meeting #35 - 14 June 2017
Thank you for your views.
I'm also interested in the views of others as Avri and Segun, that seem to have good points to make and are correcting some things which were put to the group.
As to my proposal: from the transcript it appears that you reported about it, but no debate took place. Hence your assertion that it did not "garner substantial support".
Instead Thomas R. intervened with a prepared co-chair proposal. The subsequent interventions show in my view a quite divided set of speakers until at the end of the call you ask for objections only about Thomas' proposal - which relied, as Avri has explained, partially at least on an incorrect reading of her prior suggestions to the list.
If I were the lead of this Subgroup I would be more conservative in qualifiying the situation, in view of the transcript, the reactions and how awkwardly all happened and the corrections that are being made.
In any case it is up to the CCWG to consider this Subgroup proposal (if it can be called such). And the CCWG cannot change what was agreed by the chartering orgs.
Von: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com>
Datum: 15. Juni 2017 um 23:39:44 MESZ
An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch>
Cc: ws2-jurisdiction <ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org>, MSSI Secretariat <mssi-secretariat at icann.org>, accountability-cross-community at icann.org <accountability-cross-community at icann.org>
Betreff: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Caption Notes-Recordings-Transcript links for Jurisdiction Meeting #35 - 14 June 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<mailto: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.
Von: MSSI Secretariat <mssi-secretariat at icann.org<mailto:mssi-secretariat at icann.org>>
Datum: 15. Juni 2017 um 19:47:01 MESZ
An: CCWG Accountability <accountability-cross-community at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org>>
Cc: ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org<mailto:ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org> <ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org<mailto:ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org>>
Betreff: [CCWG-ACCT] Caption Notes-Recordings-Transcript links for Jurisdiction Meeting #35 - 14 June 2017
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]
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>
* 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.
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>
Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list
Ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org
More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community