[CCWG-ACCT] [Ws2-jurisdiction] Partial immunity

[parminder]

On Sunday 25 June 2017 12:41 PM, Thomas Rickert wrote:
> Dear parminder,
> Instead of responding here, can I ask you for patience until this
> afternoon? As announced earlier, I will speak to this during the
> jurisdiction session.

Dear Thomas

Sure, the f2f meeting will be the perfect place for your response. Since
I am unable to attend I took this route to put my points on the table.
Thanks, parminder
>
> Thanks
> Thomas 
>
>> Am 25.06.2017 um 08:18 schrieb parminder <parminder at itforchange.net
>> <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>>:
>>
>>
>> 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 immunity.
>>
>> 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,
>>> Thomas
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list
>>> Ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org
>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list
>> Ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org <mailto: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/20170625/860d8441/attachment.html>