[Ws2-jurisdiction] REMINDER: Focus, Working Method and Revisions to Proposed Questions: RESPONSE REQUESTED [was: Jurisdiction Proposed Questions and Poll Results]

Fri Dec 30 07:27:10 UTC 2016

REMINDER to READ this email and RESPOND, at least with regard to the
questionnaire (see attachment).  I've slightly revised the email for
clarity.

To try and focus this discussion, I'll provide a strawman for how to deal
with the alternatives:

Preamble -- Use Alternative 1.
Question 1 -- Use Alternative 1.
Question 2 -- No change
Question 3 -- No change.
Question 4 -- Use Alternative 1.

Thank you for your responses.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com>
Date: Tue, Dec 27, 2016 at 3:28 PM
Subject: Focus, Working Method and Revisions to Proposed Questions:
RESPONSE REQUESTED [was: Jurisdiction Proposed Questions and Poll Results]
To: ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org

All,

I'm sending this to the Jurisdiction subgroup list, since this was
initially send to a discussion thread on jurisdiction taking place on the
CCWG list.

*Please respond here, rather than there.  Thank you.*

Greg

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com>
Date: Tue, Dec 27, 2016 at 2:56 AM
Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] RES: Jurisdiction Proposed Questions and Poll
Results
To: "accountability-cross-community at icann.org" <accountability-cross-
community at icann.org>

All:

Two quick but important points:

1.  We have strayed from the basic topic in front of us, which is to decide
on the formulation of the questions to be sent out.
* I have gone through the emails and meeting notes and pulled the
alternative formulations and revisions in to a single document, attached to
this email. *

With regard to question 4, I believe that the best way to move forward is
to see if one of the alternatives gets stronger support within the CCWG.
If we can get to a point where there is broad support for the question
without significant opposition that may resolve issues relating to whether
and when this question will be sent out.

2.  Our overall agreed-upon working method is to first identify, discuss
and arrive at a list of
problems
, and then move on to identifying, discussing and arriving at a list of
potential remedies for each
problem
 on our list.  We are still working on
problems
.  For a remedy to be up for discussion when we move to discussing
remedies, that remedy needs to provide a solution to a
 problem
.  We can't discuss a potential remedy without having a
 problem
it is intended to solve.  If there is a potential "remedy" but it does not
solve any of our
problems
, we won't discuss it.

We've already put aside one potential "remedy" until we see whether we
identify any
problems
 it would solve -- the "remedy" of changing ICANN's jurisdiction of
incorporation or headquarters location.  "Immunity" is another potential
remedy that we need to deal with the same way.  Skipping forward to
discussions of remedies is only slowing down our discussion of
problems
.  I strongly suggest we refocus on
problems
, so that we can get to the discussion of remedies.  Once we've agreed on a
list of
problems
, a discussion of remedies will be more productive.

Our working method of dealing with
problems
 first and then remedies may also help us find agreement on a way to deal
with question 4.  Questions 1-3 clearly deal with issues.  Perhaps a
version of question 4 that is limited to asking for
problems
 will get broader support ("Alternative 1" on the attachment may fit this
description.)

Greg

*The following responses were received on the Accountability list*:

*Parminder*:
Greg/ All

I think the Alternative 1, which you take as likely candidate for broader
support, is fine. I list this formulation below:

What are the advantages or disadvantages, if any, relating to ICANN's
jurisdiction*, particularly with regard to the actual operation of ICANN’s
policies and accountability mechanisms? Please support your response with
appropriate examples, references to specific laws, case studies, other
studies, and analysis. In particular, please indicate if there are current
or past instances that highlight such advantages or problems.

(* For these questions, “ICANN’s jurisdiction” refers to (a) ICANN being
subject to U.S. and California law as a result of its incorporation and
location in California, (b) ICANN being subject to the laws of any other
country as a result of its location within or contacts with that country,
or (c) any “choice of law” or venue provisions in agreements with ICANN.)

ENDS

Lets move on with it. We are spending too much time on framing a question.

*Kavouss Arasteh: *
Grec,
Tks again,
As I said I believe ,it is counter productive to discuss many alternative,
I could agree with formulation of Parminder
Regards
Kavouss

*Sam Lanfranco:*
Greg,

Thank you for presenting alternatives for reaching agreement on a* Roadmap
for Moving Forward to identify operational issues embedded in the overall
“jurisdiction” issue*. It is important to recognize that what is being
proposed is the choice of roadmap for moving forward. Where this takes us
will flow from the assembly of evidence, the application of analysis, and
the resulting array of possible options for addressing jurisdiction base
operational issues.

Sam Lanfranco
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ws2-jurisdiction/attachments/20161230/f5ca316a/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Proposed  Jurisdiction Subgroup Questions and Alternatives.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 501568 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ws2-jurisdiction/attachments/20161230/f5ca316a/ProposedJurisdictionSubgroupQuestionsandAlternatives-0001.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Proposed  Jurisdiction Subgroup Questions and Alternatives.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 24105 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ws2-jurisdiction/attachments/20161230/f5ca316a/ProposedJurisdictionSubgroupQuestionsandAlternatives-0001.docx>