[Ws2-jurisdiction] Mandate and Scope of Jurisdiction Subgroup will be on Tuesday's Agenda

[icannlists]

Thanks Greg.

Hi Kavouss:

Thank you for your note.  Since every state in the world is political in nature, both internally and externally, where is the proposed formation jurisdiction for ICANN?  Every State that could play host will have political issues – that is just a fact.

Also, do you really mean it when you say that “Blocking or removing a domain name is not admitted  under any circumstances”?  Are there really no circumstances under which a court should order the block or deletion of a domain name?

Best,
Paul



From: ws2-jurisdiction-bounces at icann.org [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Greg Shatan
Sent: Wednesday, June 07, 2017 1:58 PM
To: Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>
Cc: ws2-jurisdiction <ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org>
Subject: Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Mandate and Scope of Jurisdiction Subgroup will be on Tuesday's Agenda

Kavouss,

I don't recall undertaking to produce such a document.  Here is what I said regarding OFAC:

It would be my suggestion to prepare for a call on the OFAC situation in two weeks' time so that we have both ample time to prepare and also that we will have some people back who won't be attending next week's call.  I think there is definitely background information.  I, for one, would like to perhaps hear from GoDaddy, their view on what happened with Crimea.  So that we can get more general information on that.  So I think we could have a more fruitful and well-rounded discussion in two weeks' time.

​If I am overlooking something, please let me know.

Best regards,

Greg ​


On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 6:46 AM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>> wrote:
Dear Greg,
In the last call , you undertook to produce a document addressing OFAC.
This fundamental and crucial .
Pls kindly refrain to provide your personal views ; which has been always respected as the views of individual and not the rapporteur,
I am not convinced with the views that you and one of CCWG members provided few months ago.
ICANN must be away from any political motivation. Domain name is Natural and mankind resources and does not belong to any state and must be used neutrally, efficiently, effectively and economivcal without any discrimination and any political motivation.
If that issue is not appropriately addressed we failed to fulfill our responsibility .
Blocking or removing a domain name is not admitted  under any circumstances.
Regards
Kavouss

2017-06-05 8:41 GMT+02:00 <Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch>>:
Dear Greg,

I have a calendar invite for Thursday (not Tuesday).

In any case, either Tuesday or Thursday I need to apologize because I'll be tied in meetings in Tallinn (Eurodig and EU).

As to the mandate and scope: please note my position that we need to stick to the mandate given to the CCWG ws2 by the chartering organizations.

The decision whether something is in or out of scope should be based on that mandate, should be considered in light of the specific facts of the case, and should be decided prima facie by the CCWG plenary...

The Subgroup may reach ex-post i.e. case by case its own understanding v-a-v a given case where there would be a question of in/out scope, but I don't think we should lose time on developing an ex-ante position of the Subgroup in general terms.

kind regards

Jorge




________________________________

Von: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>>
Datum: 4. Juni 2017 um 23:40:05 MESZ
An: ws2-jurisdiction <ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org<mailto:ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org>>
Betreff: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Mandate and Scope of Jurisdiction Subgroup will be on Tuesday's Agenda

All,

I wanted to provide advance notice that we will pick up the discussion of the Subgroup's Mandate and Scope on Tuesday's call, with the goal of settling the issue over this call and the next. After all, we need to know what our mandate is in order to know if we ar fulfilling it. Some notes:

1. It's not up to the Subgroup to define the Subgroup's mandate and Scope. This has been done in the foundational documents -- Charter. WS 1 Report and Transition Bylaw. What we need to do is clarify our understanding of that mandate and Scope.

2. As such, the foundational documents need to form both the basis and the boundary of any such clarification or proposal for clarification. These documents were excerpted in my "straw man" mandate document sent around in the last few weeks.

3. Mandate and Scope (defined in these documents) need to be distinguished from potential issues participants might raise. Such issues, by and large, are not mentioned in the foundational documents.

4. The Mandate and Scope will be used to determine if any potential issue is "in scope".

5. Discussions of the issue on the list in advance of the call will be most helpful, since the call is only an hour.

6. While some have said we have gone in circles on this issue, or avoided resolving it. The goal here and now is to avoid that fate, whatever the outcome might be.

Finally, I request broad participation on this issue, even if you have given up on this subject of discussion.

Thank you.

Greg
_______________________________________________
Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list
Ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org<mailto:Ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction




________________________________
The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. If this message has been received in error, please delete it without reading it. Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable privilege. Please do not disseminate this message without the permission of the author. Any tax advice contained in this email was not intended to be used, and cannot be used, by you (or any other taxpayer) to avoid penalties under applicable tax laws and regulations.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ws2-jurisdiction/attachments/20170607/4d835ca0/attachment-0001.html>