[Ws2-jurisdiction] Draft questions-preamble language.

[Kavouss Arasteh]

Grec
All,
We need to add this text to the beginning of the revised text provided by
David.
It is necessary that we explain to the outside world why we decided to
raise these questions.
Regards
Kavouss

2016-12-09 4:09 GMT+01:00 Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com>:

> We worked on a scope document, but we were not able to resolve all aspects
> of the document, for reasons similar to the more recent discussion. At that
> point, we decided to work on identifying and responding to an issue that we
> could agree was within scope, which became the document "What is the
> influence of ICANN’s existing jurisdiction(s) relating to resolution of
> disputes (i.e., choice of law and venue) on the actual operation of ICANN’s
> policies and accountability mechanisms?" that we have been working on.
>
> Greg
>
>
> On Thu, Dec 8, 2016 at 8:53 AM, <Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch> wrote:
>
>> 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-bounc
>> es 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 <(703)%20948-4154>
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* ws2-jurisdiction-bounces at icann.org [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounc
>> es at icann.org <ws2-jurisdiction-bounces at icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *
>> parminder
>> *Sent:* Thursday, December 08, 2016 6:16 AM
>> *To:* 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 <(703)%20948-4154>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>>
>> 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
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list
> 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/20161209/112395bd/attachment-0001.html>