[Ws2-jurisdiction] Potential Position Alternatives - Scope and Focus

[Raphaël BEAUREGARD-LACROIX]

Dear all,

Thanks Greg, this is indeed a useful synthesis.

I find myself agreeing with approach A for point I. Approach C has
intellectual merit (a form of agnosticism...) but now that we are "in the
question" I think that developing a minimal ex ante position as "our"
interpretation of "our" mandate can be worthwhile. In the best of worlds,
we would proceed as in C, however now that the debate is open, I think it
is better to close it on something rather than nothing.

As for II, we should indeed focus on the "impact," (i.e. the problems) more
than the solutions. However I note that many inputs at point I do talk of
how to conceive solutions (in terms of mitigation of status quo, for
example.) while some inputs at point II state that we should strictly focus
on problems and maybe not even bring solutions to the table.

I am myself not very clear on that point: as WS2 subgroup are we supposed
to bring solutions to the issues we identify or not? And is this actually
up to "us" to decide? As far as I understood in Greg's summary of
"foundational documents" (ref. May 23rd email) we are supposed to give
recommendations i.e. solutions and not just pinpoint problems.

That being said, I like the idea of identifying problems before discussing
solutions. As for III (immunity,) while I don't think immunity is an
interesting solution in abstracto (there would be legal issues with seeking
immunity and there could be unintended consequences of that immunity) I
would still say "maybe" Approach A, but not now. I see Approach B and C as
being discussion over a solution to a problem that we have yet to identify
precisely.

This brings me to a nuance I would like to add: rather than the scope of
our mandate and our work being a sort of red line, the point could be
rather to always strive, for problems we identify, towards the least
disruptive solutions with regards to the current situation, i.e. how can we
optimise between maximum improvement/mitigation of the issue on one hand
and minimum disruption/dependence on 3rd parties for implementation on the
other? The issue of immunity is telling, because putting a scope "red line"
actually does not reveal whether it is in or out of scope. Is immunity
"just" mitigation or too big a dent in status quo? Hence, rather than
attempting to solve this question here and now, we should first find a or
several problems and then consider which solution is the optimal one given
these two goals (improvement/mitigation and least disruption).


Best,


2017-06-12 8:40 GMT+02:00 Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com>:

> Thanks for this Greg, useful for sometime like me who have mainly been
> following the list.
>
> It seem to me that item 2 of appendix A is main point that needs to
> addressed​ and if some of the responses​ to that implies changing the
> status quo then it should be logged and consensus check be made on such
> alternate options.
>
> Regards
>
> On 12 Jun 2017 7:08 AM, "Greg Shatan" <gregshatanipc at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> All,
>>
>> Based on our call last week, I've reviewed the captioning transcript and
>> chat transcript and pulled out the various formulations of different
>> positions on the Subgroup's scope and focus. I've edited some of the
>> statements for clarity and written vs. oral presentation, but endeavored
>> not to change the meaning in any case.
>>
>> The attached document has three charts (Scope, Focus, Immunity Question).
>> In each chart, each column represents a significantly different approach to
>> the issue.  Within each column, the statements are largely similar, but do
>> have some difference that will need to be resolved.
>>
>> Ideally, we will be able to come to consensus on an approach for each of
>> these issues.
>>
>> I've also attached a revised copy of the transcript.  I found significant
>> gaps and mistranscriptions, so I listened to the MP3 and corrected a number
>> of errors.
>>
>> Please review and respond.
>>
>> Greg
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20170612/b96410a9/attachment.html>