[CCWG-ACCT] Request for Clarification (Was Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Fwd: Caption Notes-Recordings-Transcript links for Jurisdiction Meeting #35 - 14 June 2017)

Sat Jun 17 04:45:20 UTC 2017

Dear Co-Chairs,

I was not in attendance at the last plenary in May (and perhaps a couple of
previous ones) but do follow the list and have just also checked the list
archive but can't seem to find any thread relating to consensus building of
the CCWG which then resulted to the decision of the Co-Chairs that was
presented at the jurisdiction subgroup's last meeting.

May I request clarification on how you arrived at that decision? Ofcourse I
certainly may have missed something.

Regards

On 16 Jun 2017 7:33 PM, "Greg Shatan" <gregshatanipc at gmail.com> wrote:

Seun,

Thanks for your comments.  With regard to your concerns about the co-chairs
(all but #2), you should take those up with the co-chairs.  It sounds like
some things need to be clarified.

The significance of the comments from those opposed to the decision can be
weighed by the Plenary.  While the Subgroup's support was at a sufficient
level to be called consensus, such support of the Subgroup for the
Co-Chairs' decision was welcome, but not necessary.  Finally , not to speak
for the Co-Chairs, but since the motivating factor here was to narrow our
options by excluding alternatives that would not get consensus support,
checking numbers is relevant.

Best regards,

Greg

On Fri, Jun 16, 2017 at 2:39 AM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Hello Greg,
>
> Thanks for your clarification so based on your explanation:
>
> 1. The co-chairs of the CCWG presented a personal decision of theirs and
> not of the plenary? I had thought co-chairs are supposed to observe
> discussion within the CCWG plenary and make their decision based on that.
>
> 2. The subgroup then supported the decision of the co-chairs (hopefully
> by consensus?). May I know if the subgroup decision making is only limited
> to those who attend meeting calls? I think it's important to consider the
> significance of the comments raised by the few members you indicated
> opposed as you and I know that just checking numbers for/against in this
> case will not do necessary justice to the matter at hand.
>
> 3. Saying that this will now be decided by the plenary after the co-chairs
> of the plenary already made a declaration/decision about the subject matter
> sounds like a procedural flaw to me.
>
> The plenary co-chairs have done extremely well in coordinating the CCWG
> since WS1 and I hope this will not be an exception. I will apply same
> comment to subgroup leads as well.
>
> Regards
> PS: my participation here remains as an end user affiliated to atlarge and
> NOT as any other hat that I may wear.
>
> On 16 Jun 2017 12:50 AM, "Greg Shatan" <gregshatanipc at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Seun,
>>
>> Thank you for asking.  Let me clarify for you and others where we are
>> procedurally. Yes, issues relating to clarity on scope are ultimately to be
>> determined by the CCWG plenary. As you note, Thomas was speaking for the
>> co-Chairs, and as the co-chairs stated, after almost a year of
>> deliberations in this group, they could not see the possibility of
>> consensus on recommendations which included these elements.   The decision
>> presented by Thomas was a decision by the co-Chairs. It was good that bulk
>> of the Subgroup supported the decision on the call, but it should not be
>> viewed as a Subgroup action per se.  As of the end of the call, the
>> discussion and decision now goes to the Plenary. Unless the decision
>> changes there, that ends the discussion within the CCWG.
>>
>> Greg
>>
>> On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 7:34 PM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hello Greg,
>>>
>>> In the summary sent by staff the decision extract starts with the
>>> following:
>>>
>>> "Thomas Rickert for the CCWG-Accountability Co-Chairs, We have
>>> concluded that......."
>>>
>>> Please can you clarify if this decision was made by the subgroup or by
>>> the CCWG plenary as well? As I am somewhat unclear who is declaring/making
>>> decisions on things here.
>>>
>>> If am right, the subgroup makes recommendations to the plenary who then
>>> decides, it also seem to me that issues relating to clarity on scope should
>>> be better determined by the CCWG plenary.
>>>
>>> Regards
>>>
>>> On 15 Jun 2017 10:27 PM, "Greg Shatan" <gregshatanipc at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Jurisdiction Subgroup Members,
>>>>
>>>> As noted below, after two full meetings devoted to the topic, the
>>>> Subgroup arrived at a decision (excerpted verbatim from the transcript in
>>>> the email below).  For convenience, here it is again:
>>>>
>>>> We have concluded that the Jurisdiction sub-group will take California
>>>> 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 California law and place of
>>>> incorporation. and work on solutions that are founded on this.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Opposition was noted from four participants on the call (including one
>>>> who left before the end, but had made his position clear.
>>>>
>>>> This decision will now be referred to the Plenary, consistent with CCWG
>>>> procedures.
>>>>
>>>> With this, I believe that it is imperative that we return to and focus
>>>> on identifying potential issues, deciding whether these are in fact issues
>>>> within our remit, discussing those issues and making recommendations for
>>>> resolving those issues.
>>>>
>>>> Greg
>>>>
>>>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>>> From: MSSI Secretariat <mssi-secretariat at icann.org>
>>>> Date: Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 1:46 PM
>>>> Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] Caption Notes-Recordings-Transcript links for
>>>> Jurisdiction Meeting #35 - 14 June 2017
>>>> To: CCWG Accountability <accountability-cross-community at icann.org>
>>>> Cc: "ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org" <ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 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)
>>>>
>>>> Skype:  brenda.brewer.icann
>>>>
>>>> Phone:  1-310-745-1107 <(310)%20745-1107>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *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
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list
>>>> Ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org
>>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
>>>>
>>>>
>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20170617/63edb391/attachment-0001.html>