[Ws2-jurisdiction] Jurisdiction Subgroup: The Path Forward

Sat Aug 12 09:48:07 UTC 2017

As far as I understand it, Greg is simply asking you to populate that
google sheet with issues that you feel are relevant and before the 23rd
post an explanatory statement to the list re an issue you find should
figure in the final report.

Yes there are issues still pending but the point now is to get everything
on that doc so that we can close this call for issue at call of the 23rd.

Parminder:
this sheet has not been "prepared apparently by the Chair through an
unclear process." Greg simply made the excel sheet outline and members of
the subgroup have provided input. I don't see how this process is unclear.
We have talked about the form and substance of this document in at least
two calls which I were present, and I missed several recently so it's
nothing very new.

Why don't you put your list of issues in the doc if you believe they are
important and do as Greg suggested?

Best,

2017-08-12 10:29 GMT+02:00 Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com>:

> Sent from my mobile
> Kindly excuse brevity and typos
>
> On Aug 12, 2017 8:55 AM, "farzaneh badii" <farzaneh.badii at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> Here is the sheet with the documented issues:
> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1zAMj3Oz8TEqbjauOyqt0
> 9Ef-1ada9TrC7i60Mk-7al4/edit#gid=0
>
>
>
> SO: Thanks and this is one of the issues gathering exercise that I recall
> had been done. So again my question to Greg still stand. Is he asking for
> new set of issues? If yes, does it mean the ones referenced above have all
> been addressed?
> If no, why can't the ones identified above be discussed and be done with.
>
>
>
> It took me 10 seconds to find it.
>
>
> SO: I guess that somewhat applies to Greg as well, especially as it's not
> clear what set of issues he is calling for when the
> outcome/decision/direction of the ones already listed has not been provided.
>
> I think it may have helped to read something in the line of ".... Having
> addressed all the issues raised, if there are any other issues let us
> know....."
>
>
>
> Here is the page where all the docs are displayed: https://community.i
> cann.org/display/WEIA/Jurisdiction
>
> There is no need to contact the chair to find documents.
>
>
> SO: At times it's good to ask those questions in other to remind the Chair
> of the effort that has been made previously and to also get clarification.
>
>
>
> I look forward to more substantive discussions on actual issues.
>
>
> +1 and I thought some issues have already been documented and discussion
> should just be kicked off on them. Why call for issues again when the
> current ones are still pending? Or is it that I am way behind on this hence
> missing[1] something in Greg's mail. I'd like clarification if that were
> the case.
>
>
> Regards
> 1. That is possible as my participation in calls has been somewhat low due
> to recent lack of volunteer time but do follow mails and don't think I have
> seen anything suggesting previous issues raised have been brought to
> conclusion.(apologies if am wrong).
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Farzaneh
>
> On Sat, Aug 12, 2017 at 3:20 AM, parminder <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> 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:*
>>       - *Issues should be very specific -- avoid open-ended, abstract or
>>       omnibus issues*
>>       - *Issue description should be succinct -- 12 standard lines
>>       maximum*
>>       - *Proposed solutions – if you have a possible solution or
>>       recommendation which should be considered, please include it (again, being
>>       succinct).*
>>       - *Put your issue in a new email (not a reply), with the subject
>>       ISSUE: [name of issue]*
>>       - *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
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Ws2-jurisdiction mailing listWs2-jurisdiction at icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list
>> Ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list
> Ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list
> Ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
>
>

-- 
Raphaël Beauregard-Lacroix
Sciences Po Law School 2014-2017
LinkedIn
<https://www.linkedin.com/in/rapha%C3%ABl-beauregard-lacroix-88733786/> -
@rbl0012 <https://twitter.com/rbl0112> - M: +33 7 86 39 18 15
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ws2-jurisdiction/attachments/20170812/dba2b651/attachment-0001.html>