[CCWG-ACCT] [Ws2-jurisdiction] Partial immunity
seun.ojedeji at gmail.com
Sun Jun 25 06:47:27 UTC 2017
I may not attend the meeting (or come in late). However I want to believe
the Co-Chairs have gotten the gist clearly.
There is nothing wrong with recognising a flaw/mistake and addressing it. I
hope that is the path that the Co-Chairs will follow and not trying to
defend a decision that was unilaterally declared.
Otherwise I commend the Co-Chairs for their efforts in leading this
difficult group since WS1. It's been a journey of various challenges and
this is just one of them which am sure we will get through with as usual.
On 25 Jun 2017 8:19 AM, "parminder" <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
> On Friday 23 June 2017 02:58 AM, Thomas Rickert wrote:
> Dear all,
> As previously mentioned, we will address the issue of the procedural decision the co-chairs took during our meeting at ICANN59 in detail.
> However, given the ongoing debate on the list, let me please offer a clarification on one aspect of what I said and, more importantly, what was not said.
> The co-chairs established that
> 1. Relocalization of ICANN to another jurisdiction and
> 2. Making ICANN an immune organization
> were suggestions that did not get sufficient traction to be further pursued.
> I did not speak to the question of partial immunity.
> Thomas, Let me quote your decision as officially recorded, taking the
> liberty to highlight relevant parts.
> 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.
> (quote ends)
> You clearly removed discussions and possible recommendations on "an
> immunity based concept", which evidently includes everything related to
> possible immunities, that phrase seems specifically tailored to cover
> anything that included the concept of immunity - partial immunity, tailored
> immunity, whatever. Expecting that you made this sweeping decision after
> having closely observed the concerned discussions on the list, or being
> duly reported about them, I cannot see how you could have missed the fact
> that much of the immunity discussions involved partial or tailored
> In the circumstances, I see this post facto amendment to the decision,
> after facing strong criticism about the process adopted by you to arrive at
> it, as an attempt to some make adjustments to its substance to cover up
> what are strong procedural faults with the decision. The process you
> adopted was wrong, and the decision should be withdrawn in all aspects for
> that reason alone.
> regards, parminder
> Please note that this clarification is in no way intended to be understood as an endorsement of the concept of partial or relative immunity, but I thought it was necessary to go on the record on this aspect.
> Thanks and kind regards,
> Ws2-jurisdiction mailing listWs2-jurisdiction at icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community