[Ws2-jurisdiction] Staying Focused in the Jurisdiction Subgroup

[Greg Shatan]

All,

We are getting ahead of ourselves.  Meanwhile, we're not doing the things
we should be doing, which will only slow us down in the end.

In particular, the discussions of possible "remedies", such as "immunity"
or alternative structures for ICANN are, at best, premature, and need to be
set aside.  We need to focus the subgroup on problems first, consistent
with our work plan.  Problems will lead to remedies, just as diagnosis
leads to treatment.

Specifically, the subgroup needs to concentrate on taking suggestions for
possible problems arising from "ICANN's jurisdiction" from participants,
really discussing these suggestions in the subgroup, and determining as a
subgroup whether these suggestions are in fact problems that should be
included in our analysis.

I'm specifically using "problems" and not "issues", based on a very good
suggestion from Phil Corwin: "*Rather than issues, I believe we should be
focus on on demonstrable problems. Issues can just consists of debating
points absent real world evidence of something broken or substantially
sub-optimal requiring a remedy.*" "Problems" conveys much better that we
are look for concrete, specific items arising from "ICANN's jurisdiction,"
particularly with regard to the actual operation of policies and
accountability mechanisms (as stated in Annex 12).

After that is done, and the subgroup has an agreed list of problems, we
will then turn our focus to considering specific possible remedies for
specific problems.  Discussions of remedies should be held until that
time.  Discussing remedies now will only delay the proper discussion of
remedies by the subgroup.

This has also distracted us from resolving issues with the questionnaire.
On Tuesday, I sent out a follow-up email on the questionnaire under the
Subject "Focus, Working Method and Revisions to Proposed Questions:
RESPONSE REQUESTED."  So far, there have been very few responses.  Please
read and respond to that email.  We need to see if there is a compromise
regarding Question 4 that will garner broad support in the subgroup and
satisfy most (if not all) objections raised in the subgroup.

Thank you.

Greg
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ws2-jurisdiction/attachments/20161230/8adf2271/attachment.html>