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

Mon Aug 21 21:25:58 UTC 2017

Dear Greg,
I wish t remind you of my first reminder to confirm having received my
issue that I sent you yesterday.
regards
Kavouss

On Mon, Aug 21, 2017 at 11:09 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com>
wrote:

> 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 at ican
>> n.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/spread
>> sheets/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
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20170821/7898f196/attachment-0001.html>