[Ws2-jurisdiction] Jurisdiction Subgroup: The (Revised) Path Forward

Mon Aug 21 21:09:10 UTC 2017

Thiago,

Thank you for allowing me to correct you.

The language you say "goes beyond what has been discussed or even hinted at
by the subgroup" is taken almost verbatim from the first version of the
"Path Forward" proposal circulated and discussed on last week's call.
There was no opposition to that aspect of the proposal.  Indeed, I softened
it slightly, on my own initiative, by adding "likely" before 2-4 issues.

As for the "one person, one issue" aspect of the proposal, I'm not sure why
you bring that up now.  That "more basic question" was answered on the last
call and has very clearly been changed in the revised Path Forward email to
which you are replying. For your convenience, I'll repeat it here:

The Method: Participants should each present one or more issues (with
proposed solutions) which they believe are in scope for the Subgroup

   - If you present more than one issue, please prioritize them (e.g., 1,
      2, 3)

Finally, I will remind you that each meeting has its own subpage on our
Subgroup's wiki, and all of these elements, including the deadline, were
posted soon after the last meeting on the page for last week's meeting at
https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=69272137.  Of
course, those who were on the call (like you) needed neither the email nor
the wiki page, since you were on the call.  It should also be noted that in
the original Path Forward proposal, it was clearly stated that these issues
would be discussed on the 23 August call.  In a perfect world, the email
would have gone out earlier, but it was only the latest in several
different communications all covering the same ground.

I do agree with your exhortation to be efficient as possible in dealing
with the issues the participants have proposed.  This starts, of course,
with the participants being efficient in setting forth those issues, which
could see improvement in some instances.

Best regards,

Greg

On Mon, Aug 21, 2017 at 3:02 AM, Thiago Braz Jardim Oliveira <
thiago.jardim at itamaraty.gov.br> wrote:

> Dear Greg,
>
> Please correct me if I'm mistaken. As far as I'm aware of, the subgroup
> has NOT (at least not yet) chosen to limit the number of issues there will
> be in any final report. So, to my understanding, your suggestion that "we
> will need to select a handful of issues (likely, 2 to 4)" goes beyond what
> has been discussed or even hinted at by the subgroup. In fact, with regard
> to the more basic question as to the number of issues each participant are
> to suggest for consideration (obviously all with the expectation that they
> will be retained in a final report to the extent possible), there was NOT
> significant support for your initial proposed path that would have limited
> it to "one man/woman one issue".
>
> So I'd encourage us not to put the cart before the horse (again) and try
> to be as efficient as possible in the treatment of the issues participants
> will have proposed. This could probably lead us to have in a final report
> more than the "likely, 2 to 4" issues that you suggest, which number the
> subgroup has never even suggested would be satisfactory.
>
> Best,
>
> Thiago
>
> PS: on a related note, it is regrettable that the message to the list
> informing all participants that they will have until the 21 August to post
> issues for consideration was only sent on the very 21 August.
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
> *De:* ws2-jurisdiction-bounces at icann.org [ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@
> icann.org] em nome de Greg Shatan [gregshatanipc at gmail.com]
> *Enviado:* segunda-feira, 21 de agosto de 2017 0:32
> *Para:* ws2-jurisdiction
> *Cc:* acct-staff at icann.org
> *Assunto:* [Ws2-jurisdiction] Jurisdiction Subgroup: The (Revised) Path
> Forward
>
> At our 16 August meeting, we discussed the initial “Path Forward” proposal
> and various comments from participants.  We arrived at the following
> approach to produce Subgroup recommendations.
>
> *11 October Deadline*:
>
> ·         Based on the overall timeline for Work Stream 2, the Subgroup
> has until *11 October* to submit a draft report and set of
> recommendations to the Plenary for first reading.
>
> ·         In other words, we have about *seven (7) weeks* to develop a
> draft set of issues and recommendations and come to consensus on these.
>
> *A Handful of Issues:* We will need to select *a handful of issues
> (likely, 2 to 4) *which*:*
>
> ·         Are within our *remit*.
>
> ·         Will result in *recommendations that achieve consensus in the
> Subgroup*.
>
> *The Challenge: *Everyone will have to * compromise* in order to finalize
> 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 particular issues.
>
> *The Method: Participants* should each present *one or more issues (with
> proposed solutions)* which they believe are *in scope* for the Subgroup
>
> ·         If you present more than one issue, please prioritize them
> (e.g., 1, 2, 3)
>
> ·         Post the issue statement(s) to the list by *23:59 on 21 August*
> for discussion at our meeting of *23 August*.
>
> ·         Issues should be* very specific* -- avoid open-ended, abstract
> or omnibus issues.
>
> ·         All proposed issue statements should *include one or more
> proposed solutions*.
>
> ·         Issue and solution descriptions should be* succinct *-- 12
> standard lines maximum (each).
>
> ·         Send your issue statement to the *email list* or put it on the *Google
> sheet*:
>
> o   *Use a new email *(not a reply)*, *with the* subject ISSUE: [name of
> issue].*
>
> o   Google sheet is here: *MailScanner has detected definite fraud in the
> website at "docs.google.com". Do not trust this website:* *MailScanner
> has detected definite fraud in the website at "docs.google.com". Do not
> trust this website:* https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/
> 1zAMj3Oz8TEqbjauOyqt09Ef-1ada9TrC7i60Mk-7al4/edit?usp=sharing
> <https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1zAMj3Oz8TEqbjauOyqt09Ef-1ada9TrC7i60Mk-7al4/edit?usp=sharing>
>
> §  If you put your issue on the Google sheet, notify the email list.
>
> ·         If another participant proposes an issue you wanted to propose,
> simply post your support for that issue statement.
>
> Thank you.
>
> Greg
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ws2-jurisdiction/attachments/20170821/7053e474/attachment.html>