parminder at itforchange.net
Tue Jun 27 13:37:20 UTC 2017
On Tuesday 27 June 2017 06:50 PM, parminder wrote:
> "Held a session on the Jurisdiction sub-group’s recent discussions
> regarding the possibility of
> changing the location of ICANN’s headquarters or creating a blanket
> immunity for ICANN.
In fact, this is not a true statement. I am aware of no discussions in
the jurisdiction sub group about "creating a blanket immunity for
ICANN". And since the cause for action is untrue and mis- represented,
the subsequent action banning such a discussion should not legitimately
hold. If my statement is wrong, I am happy to be pointed to such a
discussion in the sub group. Otherwise, please strike out this part of
the decision. Not that I am interested in a blanket immunity, but I do
not like inappropriate "decisions". Thanks.
> In this
> session it was confirmed that it was unlikely there would be consensus
> in the CCWG for any
> recommendation that involved changing ICANN’s headquarters’ location
> or jurisdiction of
> incorporation or creating a blanket immunity for ICANN. As such, the
> sub-group’s work shall
> focus on recommending accountability improvements that are
> issue-driven remedies which
> build upon ICANN’s status as a non-for-profit organization
> headquartered in California."
> Is this now a CCWG decision, or still an interposition by its chairs?
> If the former, is there a process for that which got followed at the
> f2f meeting? I ask because I really dont know much about the processes
> being followed here. My apologies for that. Other than the CCWG and
> sub groups chairs who appeared completely unflappable in face of
> numerous questions, doubts and criticisms raised by those present, and
> largely refused to engage with them, from my limited process
> knowledge, I am unable to see how it could be said that the CCWG
> approved this "decision". Just want to be sure.
> Apart from the the process, I find problems with the substance of the
> "decision". There were certainly very significant push back on the
> "immunity" part of the "decision", in the sub-group discussions as
> well as at the f2f meeting, with whatever qualifications the term is
> included in the "decision". The meaning and manner of such possible
> qualifications and modulations of the "concept of immunity" themselves
> are an issue to be discussed and decided by the group.... By
> introducing some arbitrary, and certainly premature, terms in this
> regard, any possible discussion on the subject is greatly compromised.
> Some people will keep reading different meanings in this decision
> about what kinds of immunity based solutions can or cannot be
> discussed, which will ruin the possibility of a useful, open
> discussion on the subject.
> In face of the considerable push back in the sub group, CCWG chair
> "went on the record" (his words) in the sub group elist to say that he
> did not meant to exclude discussions on "partial or relative"
> immunity. In the circumstances, I understand by this new term "blanket
> immunity" just such immunity that would disable ICANN from remaining a
> non-for-profit registered in California.
> On Tuesday 27 June 2017 05:28 PM, Bernard Turcotte wrote:
>> Co-Chair statement following the 25 June Face to Face meeting attached.
>> Bernard Turcotte
>> ICANN Staff Support to the CCWG-Accountability-WS2
>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> 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