[Ws2-jurisdiction] Draft questions-preamble language.

[Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch]

Dear all

Didn't we agree already on a document where we restated the scope of our work? I'm not sure whether memory fails me here...

Regards

Jorge

Von: ws2-jurisdiction-bounces at icann.org [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces at icann.org] Im Auftrag von McAuley, David
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 8. Dezember 2016 07:32
An: ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org
Betreff: Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Draft questions-preamble language.

I tried not to nudge respondents one way or the other but did want to create a very general introduction to the questions not unlike that the SO/AC Accountability group did in their similar questionnaire to SOs/ACs.

As many in this group may realize from my periodic interventions on list or on phone, I do want to stay within remit which I view more narrowly than some others. Nonetheless, I had hoped to be neutral in creating this preamble and not reflect a particular view.

Given the views expressed so far I suggest that some alternative paragraphs be floated by those wishing a change and that way we can try to sort this so that we need not spend a great deal of time on it on the next call. I say that, however, subject to the wishes of Greg and/or Vinay as to how to proceed on this preamble.

David

David McAuley
International Policy Manager
Verisign Inc.
703-948-4154

From: ws2-jurisdiction-bounces at icann.org<mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces at icann.org> [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of parminder
Sent: Thursday, December 08, 2016 6:16 AM
To: ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org<mailto:ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Draft questions-preamble language.


Hi All

I do not agree to a partial quoting of the sub group's mandate in the preamble - -which appears to make it look like we are only concerned with where choice of law is available (private law) and not where it is not available (public laws). Such approaches become kind of 'creeping acquisition' whereby the mandate keeps shifting towards one side, away from the other.

Second, I will like to know the status of the consideration of that other question which was proposed about how existing legal/institutional frameworks impacted ICANN's policy and operational work. Can the co-chairs clarify please?

As argued often before, I do not agree to these 3 questions going out and not that other one. It should be one exercise, all of them together, or none of them. As they say 'in politics what we dont do is a important s what we do'. There has been a lot of support for this other, 4th , question, and I think that support must also count for not sending just 3 questions out in absence of enough agreement about the 4th question. That at least is my position.

thanks, parminder

On Tuesday 06 December 2016 08:41 PM, McAuley, David wrote:
Dear Greg, Vinay and colleagues,

I volunteered to draft a proposed preface or preamble to the questions we may send out for comment.

With thanks to Cheryl Langdon-Orr for sharing the subgroup on SO/AC Accountability preamble, please find attached a draft for our consideration.

Best regards,
David

David McAuley
International Policy Manager
Verisign Inc.
703-948-4154




_______________________________________________

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/ws2-jurisdiction/attachments/20161208/145d5fa8/attachment-0001.html>