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

[Thiago Braz Jardim Oliveira]

Dear Greg,

I took the liberty to edit part of your table (with tracked changes) for the purposes of clarity about a couple of points others and I have been trying to make. The document is attached.

The first point is that choosing one of different approaches under "I. Limitations of Subgroup's Scope" is not necessary. In the document attached, for illustrative purposes, I only slightly changed the wording of the first approach on the "Focus of the Subgroup's work", and we would achieve the same result without having to tie our hands. I believe it is quite clear that, if we were to follow that approach, no reason compels us to assume ICANN will either remain or not in California for us to get our work done.

The second point is that choosing one of different approaches under "I. Limitations of Subgroup's Scope" is not appropriate. This limits our ability to discuss remedies, and this limitation would come at a stage where we have not discussed the problems that may need to be remedied. Again, there was agreement within the Subgroup that our work should address issues first, and only discuss remedies once the issues have been identified, which is logical.

A final observation is that the table conflates approaches that address remedies with approaches to identify issues (sometimes even under the same headings). To me this seems confusing and might mislead some.

Best,

Thiago



-----Mensagem original-----
De: ws2-jurisdiction-bounces at icann.org [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces at icann.org] Em nome de Greg Shatan
Enviada em: segunda-feira, 12 de junho de 2017 03:08
Para: ws2-jurisdiction
Assunto: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Potential Position Alternatives - Scope and Focus

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
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Potential Position Alternatives-cut&edited.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 17004 bytes
Desc: Potential Position Alternatives-cut&edited.docx
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ws2-jurisdiction/attachments/20170612/ef03de6f/PotentialPositionAlternatives-cutedited-0001.docx>