[Ws2-jurisdiction] Jurisdiction Subgroup: The Path Forward
parminder
parminder at itforchange.net
Sat Aug 12 08:26:23 UTC 2017
On Saturday 12 August 2017 01:53 PM, parminder wrote:
>
>
>
> On Saturday 12 August 2017 01:24 PM, farzaneh badii wrote:
>> Here is the sheet with the documented issues:
>> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1zAMj3Oz8TEqbjauOyqt09Ef-1ada9TrC7i60Mk-7al4/edit#gid=0
>
> No, this is the new issues doc, prepared apparently by the Chair
> through an unclear process. We are looking for the old issues doc,
> which was a collective effort.
>>
>> It took me 10 seconds to find it.
>>
>> Here is the page where all the docs are
>> displayed: https://community.icann.org/display/WEIA/Jurisdiction
>
> Useful. That doc is at
> file:///home/param/Downloads/InfluenceofExistingJurisdictionsforDisputesonPolicyandAccountability%20(1).pdf
sorry, here
https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/59643282/InfluenceofExistingJurisdictionsforDisputesonPolicyandAccountability%20%281%29.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1485448812000&api=v2
>>
>> There is no need to contact the chair to find documents.
>
> Apart from finding the right doc, there was also a question, which
> remains unanswered. Why and how was the collaborative document that we
> were working on containing issues of interest to the group abandoned,
> and a new one of unclear provenance issued? Who made this new
> document, following what process?
>
>> You can contact ICANN staff for updated materials if you cannot find
>> them on the WS2 page which I pasted above.
>>
>> I look forward to more substantive discussions on actual issues.
>
> Sure, you want substantive discussions - these were the jurisdiction
> issues that I had posted a year ago on the linked collaborative doc --
> somehow any substantive discussion refuses to take place on them. Can
> you/ others persuade me that there issues are fake, non issues,
> unimportant etc. I have given many arguments and facts over the year
> attesting to the importance of each of these, but happy to discuss again.
>
> a. A US court may find ICANN's actions, involving actual
> operation if its policies – like delegation of a gTLD, and/ or
> acceptance of certain terms of registry operation, to be in
> derogation of US law and instruct it to change its actions.
>
> b. Emergency, including war related, powers of the US state –
> existing, or that may be legislated in the future, like for
> instance that involves country's critical infrastructure – may
> get invoked with respect to ICANN's policies and functions in
> a manner that are detrimental to some other country (or
> countries).
>
> c. An US executive agency like OFAC may prohibit or limit
> engagement of ICANN with entities in specific countries.
>
> d. FCC which has regulatory jurisdiction over US's
> communication infrastructure may in future find some ICANN
> functions and/ or policies to be such that it would like to
> apply its regulatory powers over them in what it thinks is the
> interest of the US public.
>
> e. US customs, or such other enforcement agency may want to
> force ICANN to seize a private gTLD of a business that is
> located outside US which these agencies find as contravening
> US law, like its intellectual property laws.
>
> f. A sector regulator in the US, say in the area of health/
> pharma, transportation, hotels, etc, may find issues with the
> registry agreement that ICANN allows to a registry that takes
> up key gTLD denoting these sectors, like .pharma, .car, .hotel
> and lays exclusion-inclusion and other principles for the
> gTLD, and it may force ICANN to either rescind or change the
> agreement, and conditions under it.
>
>
> (ends)
>
> parminder
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Farzaneh
>>
>> On Sat, Aug 12, 2017 at 3:20 AM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net
>> <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Saturday 12 August 2017 11:37 AM, Seun Ojedeji wrote:
>>> Hello Greg,
>>>
>>> If I recall correctly there was a call to log issues twice now.
>>> Can you provide the URL where the issues are documented for
>>> people to pick from OR are you suggesting to hit another reset
>>> and start logging issues again?
>>>
>>> Regards
>>> PS: I hope I will get a response this time as I don't get
>>> response from you including when I even write you privately to
>>> remind you of my question.
>>
>> To add to this, I asked for the original issues doc twice, and
>> quite pointedly the second time in a separate email, to which
>> Jorge responded also asking for it, and reminding that he too had
>> asked for it earlier once.
>>
>> This is the most extra-ordinary chair-ship of a working group
>> that I have ever witnessed! Why dont we just get told what report
>> we have to sign off on and close the matters.
>>
>> parminder
>>
>>
>>
>>> Sent from my mobile
>>> Kindly excuse brevity and typos
>>>
>>> On Aug 12, 2017 12:13 AM, "Greg Shatan" <gregshatanipc at gmail.com
>>> <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Jurisdiction Subgroup Members,
>>>
>>>
>>> As explained by Staff at our last meeting on 9 August, we
>>> have until *11 October* to submit a draft set of
>>> recommendations to the Plenary for consideration as a first
>>> reading if any such recommendations are to be accepted by
>>> the Plenary, published for Public Consultation and included
>>> in the Final WS2 Report.
>>>
>>>
>>> In other words, we have about *8 weeks* to develop a draft
>>> set of recommendations and come to consensus on these.
>>>
>>>
>>> Obviously, given this time-frame, we have to accept that we
>>> will not be able to address all issues. In fact, the only
>>> realistic approach, if we want to deliver any
>>> recommendations, is to pick a handful of issues (2 to 4) on
>>> which we can all agree and for which we believe we can
>>> propose recommendations that will achieve consensus.
>>>
>>>
>>> I remain optimistic that we can do this if we can agree,
>>> meaning everyone will have to compromise, to select this
>>> limited number of issues over the next very few weeks and
>>> work diligently at meetings and on the list to develop
>>> recommendations for these.
>>>
>>>
>>> To reach this objective I would propose the following approach:
>>>
>>>
>>> * *Each participant should pick _one_ issue which they
>>> believe is in scope for us and post that issue to the
>>> list prior to our meeting of 23 August. More specifically:*
>>> o *Issues should be very specific -- avoid open-ended,
>>> abstract or omnibus issues*
>>> o *Issue description should be succinct -- 12 standard
>>> lines maximum*
>>> o *Proposed solutions – if you have a possible
>>> solution or recommendation which should be
>>> considered, please include it (again, being succinct).*
>>> o *Put your issue in a new email (not a reply), with
>>> the subject ISSUE: [name of issue]*
>>> o *The sooner, the better*
>>>
>>> I look forward to discussing this proposal at our next
>>> meeting of *16 August* and I would encourage participants to
>>> comment on this proposal in response to this email prior to
>>> that meeting.
>>>
>>>
>>> Greg
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list
>>> Ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org <mailto:Ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org>
>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
>>> <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list
>>> Ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org <mailto:Ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org>
>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
>>> <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list
>> Ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org <mailto:Ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org>
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
>> <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction>
>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ws2-jurisdiction/attachments/20170812/36c5cb5f/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Ws2-jurisdiction
mailing list