[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 12:48:54 UTC 2017

Dear Thomas, Dear Leon, Dear Jordan,
Dear All,
Taking into account what has happened at the last call of WS2 Jurisdiction
: intervention of Thomas ; I hereby respectfully and formally include in
the F2F CCWG Plenary in South Africa the follows;
1. Duty, responsibility, entitlement, mandate of CO-Chair  the SW2
Jurisdiction subgroup .
2. Discussions, debate on the way forward for Sub Group Jurisdiction to
 complete its work on time for submission its Recommendations to the
Plenary
Regards
Kavouss

2017-06-17 9:55 GMT+02:00 Thomas Rickert <rickert at anwaelte.de>:

> Dear Seun,
> thanks for your note.
>
> During the last subgroup’s call I have explained to the sub team that we
> would report to the plenary, so please rest assured that keeping the CCWG
> in the loop was always planned.
>
> In a few days, the CCWG will convene for its meeting at ICANN59.
>
> We will address this issue during that session.
>
> Kind regards,
> Thomas
>
>
> Am 17.06.2017 um 06:45 schrieb Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com>:
>
> 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
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20170617/5a9b899e/attachment-0001.html>