<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p>"Held a session on the Jurisdiction sub-group’s recent
discussions regarding the possibility of<br>
changing the location of ICANN’s headquarters or creating a
blanket immunity for ICANN. In this<br>
session it was confirmed that it was unlikely there would be
consensus in the CCWG for any<br>
recommendation that involved changing ICANN’s headquarters’
location or jurisdiction of<br>
incorporation or creating a blanket immunity for ICANN. As such,
the sub-group’s work shall<br>
focus on recommending accountability improvements that are
issue-driven remedies which<br>
build upon ICANN’s status as a non-for-profit organization
headquartered in California."</p>
<p>Is this now a CCWG decision, or still an interposition by its
chairs?</p>
<p>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.<br>
</p>
<p>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.
<br>
</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>Parminder</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On Tuesday 27 June 2017 05:28 PM,
Bernard Turcotte wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAPhodgK1q-izj0pZYBs9X1_wcO0vSyBN_jZW_VC2iA6S9biakw@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:small">All,</div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:small"><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:small">Co-Chair
statement following the 25 June Face to Face meeting attached.</div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:small"><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:small">Bernard
Turcotte</div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:small">ICANN Staff
Support to the CCWG-Accountability-WS2</div>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>