[Ws2-jurisdiction] Staying Focused in the Jurisdiction Subgroup

[Kavouss Arasteh]

Grec,
Tks for your suggestions
Without getting involved in semantic delima of whether we speak about "
Issues " or " Problems" I take your sentence saying
Quote
*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  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)*
Unquote
Please then make a shopping lists of the Problems .I have provided you with
22 problems / questions extracted from the earlier discussions. They are
not drafted by me .
Then waiting to receive the list of problems that you wish to discuss.
This the  fourth times that we change our agenda and sechedule of work . I
hope you would succeed in collecting the problems that people talked since
the first meeting .
Regards
Kavouss

2016-12-30 8:13 GMT+01:00 Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com>:

> 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20161230/77b3164c/attachment.html>