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

Fri Dec 30 17:34:30 UTC 2016

Submitted in compliance with the rapporteur's request.

Preamble -- Use Alternative 3.
Question 1 -- Use Alternative 2.
Question 2 -- No change
Question 3 -- No change. I would like to see an explicit mention of
either Primary or Secondary legal or accademic sources being acceptable.
Question 4 -- Use Alternative 1.

avri

On 30-Dec-16 02:27, Greg Shatan wrote:
> 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
> <mailto: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 <mailto: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
> <mailto: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
> <mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org>"
> <accountability-cross-community at icann.org
> <mailto: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*
> *
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list
> Ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus