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

Sat Dec 31 22:35:23 UTC 2016

Dear All,

People continue to push deleting Q4 .This is aggressive, selfish, narrow
minded and divisionism. These people are all from one sector ,one country
and  opponent of multistakeholder.

They have a special mission to maintain the existing Jurisdiction which
certainly protect them and disregard the others. If we look at their
affiliation it is not surprising what they push for.

I assure you, either all 4 Questions or no questions.

Such counting is not valid due to the fact that an overwhelming majority
are coming from one single country .These are those who impose us the
current stru8cture of WS1 designed by lawyers from one country well paid
and well done for that country.

They are protecting a particular group ,they are all together in a
well-orchestrated arrangement.

They are, in fact against global multistahkeholder .

Their actions would certainly have counter reactions by others.

We will raise awareness of others in all fora.

What we did to laisse everybody was a mistake. We should have be more
cautious to oppose to such single country stakeholder.

Sonner we will have open consultation on the internet in which we made
every thing xclear to the people.

Please look at the opponents of question 4 . who they are ? where they come
from ? whom they protect .

The answer is crystal clear.

I am suggesting to the CCWG CO-CHAIR TO STOP SUB GROUP ACRTIVITIES .

This sub group is influenced by few individual acting against thousands opf
person who do not have the opportunity to participate and contribute.

They have no expertise. They have have resources.

Silence does not means no views nor does it means agreement .

We oppose to the holding of the meeting of 05 Januray. It serves nothing
but protect these people from one single country.

Co- Chairs.

You need to intervene and instruct and advise.-

Regards

Kavouss

2016-12-31 23:13 GMT+01:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>:

> Dear All,
> People pèreventing us to progess by pushing for Q
>
> 2016-12-31 22:00 GMT+01:00 McAuley, David <dmcauley at verisign.com>:
>
>> Thank you Greg for trying to help us navigate this difficult discussion.
>>
>>
>>
>> If we somehow end up with questions 1-4 then I would support your
>> strawman, except for the preamble where I support the proposed preamble.
>>
>>
>>
>> In the meantime I am puzzled by where we find ourselves.
>>
>>
>>
>> The poll regarding the proposed questions had 31 respondents. Questions
>> 1-3 were supported by very wide margin, 29-2. Question 4 was supported by a
>> very narrow margin, 17-14. And what amounted to question 5 (“If Question 4
>> is not approved, I support sending out a questionnaire containing only
>> Questions 1-3”) was supported by a vote of 19-8 (with 4 not answering), a
>> far greater margin than Q4.
>>
>>
>>
>> What happened to the notion of sending Q’s 1-3 without Q4 based on the
>> polling results? Question 5 decided Question 4 and the format of the survey
>> already. As suggested by others, we should not waste any more time on this.
>>
>>
>>
>> I suspect the questionnaire will be the primary focus of our call on
>> Thursday Jan. 5. I will re-read a number of e-mails on the various sides of
>> this issue and comment then.
>>
>>
>>
>> But anticipation of that call raises a point that I believe is making our
>> task more difficult. Participation rates are low, not just here but across
>> WS2. Given the length and intensity of WS1 that may be understandable,
>> nonetheless we are grappling with issues/questions that seem better suited
>> to a forum other than WS2.
>>
>>
>>
>> Back in September I wrote on list why I thought ICANN’s location was out
>> of our scope – I stand by that e-mail (http://mm.icann.org/pipermail
>> /ws2-jurisdiction/2016-September/000099.html). The questions we are
>> wrestling with on list now seem far beyond our ability to answer, much less
>> fix.
>>
>>
>>
>> I am not saying the questions are improper or should never be raised – I
>> am saying that they appear beyond our scope and capability.
>>
>>
>>
>> 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] *On Behalf Of *Greg Shatan
>> *Sent:* Friday, December 30, 2016 2:27 AM
>> *To:* ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org
>> *Subject:* [EXTERNAL] [Ws2-jurisdiction] REMINDER: Focus, Working Method
>> and Revisions to Proposed Questions: RESPONSE REQUESTED [was: Jurisdiction
>> Proposed Questions and Poll Results]
>>
>>
>>
>> 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
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20161231/a979c66b/attachment-0001.html>