[Ws2-jurisdiction] RES: Question Presented (Greg Shatan)

Tue Jun 13 04:07:09 UTC 2017

Dear Greg,
thanks for kindly clarifying - I'll try to be more specific next time (as unfortunately other pressing obligations prevent me from attending many calls...)
best regards
Jorge

________________________________

Von: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com>
Datum: 12. Juni 2017 um 23:56:05 MESZ
An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch>
Cc: Thiago Braz Jardim Oliveira <thiago.jardim at itamaraty.gov.br>, ws2-jurisdiction <ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org>
Betreff: Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] RES: Question Presented (Greg Shatan)

Jorge,

I'm sorry that you feel your contribution was disregarded during the most recent call. It was not intentional, nor do I feel that such characterization is really accurate.  Your June 5 email only said "please note my position," which I did not read as a request for me to raise it as a proposal for consideration during the call.  We'll have to improve our communication!

I did respond on June 7 to you and others by email, confirming that this discussion was part of our Work Plan.  I see now in reviewing this email thread ex post facto that Thiago referred to your contribution as a "specific proposal" in an email later that day, but I guess I did not put these thoughts together into a request. (Thiago mentioned it again in an email just before the call, but sadly I didn't see that one until after the call.)

In any event, your proposal was brought up during the call in the chat by Thiago, which I then noted, but it was not taken up by anyone else on the call.  There was a response in the chat by one participant that he did not know what the proposal meant; the answer was only that other people do, which unfortunately did not stimulate much in the way of further conversation.

As I'm sure you have seen, your contribution was featured in the document that I circulated yesterday, since it had been raised on the call by Thiago. It was also raised on our email list by Thiago as well as yourself, more than once.  So it seems that your position has been broadly circulated and there has been ample opportunity for others to consider it.

Best regards,

Greg

On Sat, Jun 10, 2017 at 3:10 AM, <Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch>> wrote:
All very valuable and good points!

@Greg: could you please elaborate on why you disregarded my proposal? I expressly apologized for not being able to attend the meeting, but also made a specific proposal (consistent with prior discussions and agreements in the Group, as Thiago mentions) which I asked to be considered.

best regards

Jorge

________________________________

Von: Thiago Braz Jardim Oliveira <thiago.jardim at itamaraty.gov.br<mailto:thiago.jardim at itamaraty.gov.br>>
Datum: 10. Juni 2017 um 00:47:34 MESZ
An: ws2-jurisdiction <ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org<mailto:ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org>>
Betreff: [Ws2-jurisdiction] RES: Question Presented (Greg Shatan)

Dear Greg,

It would have been best if you could have sent your question to the group prior to the call, and not only as the call was happening. People who were not present, and only saw the proposal in their mailing list afterwards, might perhaps be misled into thinking that the question you drafted came from the group, or that it reflected some degree of consensus within the group.

May I highlight, in that context, that you disregarded the suggestion to submit Jorge's proposal to the group for consideration. His proposal, which I and others seconded, was to have the group discuss the mandate in respect of concrete cases, and not develop an ex-ante position in abstract.

As to the question itself, my first observation is that we are not supposed to ask anything like this now. As reflected in our revised work plan of 24 April 2017, it was agreed that "the Subgroup will identify issues before it goes on to explore remedies"; "for each issue, the group will then look at proposed remedies"; "the group should not discuss a remedy until an issue has been identified that requires discussion of that remedy". The question you drafted goes in the opposite direction, as it concerns one imaginable remedy (change to ICANN's status or location), prior to having identified what are the issues to be discussed by the group.

My second remark is that your proposal makes a couple of assumptions that are not accurate nor necessary. For example, in the first bullet point, you assume that no form of immunity from domestic jurisdiction is possible for ICANN in case it remains an organisation incorporated in California. This is not true, as immunity arrangements are possible under different forms. Take the ICRC, which has domestic and international law immunities, even though it remains a private organisation governed by Swiss law.

My third remark is about the logical chain in the third bullet point. There is this suggestion that if we can't reach consensus on the mandate, then we would need to refer the question you drafted to the Plenary. Well, if there is no consensus on the mandate, then we should simply refer the mandate itself to the Plenary, not any question pre-empting hypothetical outcomes which could, by the way, only be reached in case the group engages in substantive discussions on the issues identified by the group and on the correspondent possible remedies..

Best regards,

Thiago

-----Mensagem original-----
De: Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>]
Enviada em: sexta-feira, 9 de junho de 2017 01:47
Para: Kavouss Arasteh
Cc: Thiago Braz Jardim Oliveira; ws2-jurisdiction
Assunto: Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Question Presented (Greg Shatan)

Thiago, this slide was prepared prior to the call as a strawman to assist with the discussion.  As a result of the call, we now have a number of suggestions for changes or alternatives to the question, so we have moved beyond the strawman.  Of course, as you have noted, some version of this question has been discussed by the Subgroup before.

Kavouss, since we have moved beyond this formulation of the question, I'm not sure it's necessary to address whether the strawman question is biased or leads to a predetermined judgment (on the latter, since there are at least two opposing answers, I don't see how that can be the case).  However, if you have any observations you would like to share that would be helpful in revising the question or preparing an alternative to it, please do share your thoughts.  Thank you.

Greg

On Thu, Jun 8, 2017 at 5:08 PM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>> wrote:

        Dear Greg,
        Dear All, It was not,
        The question is biased giving a prédétermine judgement
        I do not agree with this question.
        Regards
        Kavouss

        2017-06-08 22:48 GMT+02:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>>:

                Dear All, It was not,
                The question is biased giving a prédétermine judgement
                I do not agree with this question.
                Regards

                Kavouss

                2017-06-08 20:21 GMT+02:00 Thiago Braz Jardim Oliveira <thiago.jardim at itamaraty.gov.br<mailto:thiago.jardim at itamaraty.gov.br> <mailto:thiago.jardim at itamaraty.gov.br<mailto:thiago.jardim at itamaraty.gov.br>> >:

                        Greg,

                        Help me with this. Was this question you wanted to discuss at today's call presented to the group earlier than today or before today's call?

                        Thanks,

                        Thiago

                        -----Mensagem original-----
                        De: ws2-jurisdiction-bounces at icann.org<mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces at icann.org> <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces at icann.org<mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces at icann.org>>  [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces at icann.org<mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces at icann.org> <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces at icann.org<mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces at icann.org>> ] Em nome de ws2-jurisdiction-request at icann.org<mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-request at icann.org> <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-request at icann.org<mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-request at icann.org>>
                        Enviada em: quinta-feira, 8 de junho de 2017 10:29
                        Para: ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org<mailto:ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org>
                        Assunto: Ws2-jurisdiction Digest, Vol 12, Issue 18

                        Send Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list submissions to
                                ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org<mailto:ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org>

                        To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
                                https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction>
                        or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
                                ws2-jurisdiction-request at icann.org<mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-request at icann.org> <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-request at icann.org<mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-request at icann.org>>

                        You can reach the person managing the list at
                                ws2-jurisdiction-owner at icann.org<mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-owner at icann.org> <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-owner at icann.org<mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-owner at icann.org>>

                        When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of Ws2-jurisdiction digest..."

                        Today's Topics:

                           1. Question Presented (Greg Shatan)

                        ----------------------------------------------------------------------

                        Message: 1
                        Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2017 09:28:50 -0400
                        From: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>>
                        To: ws2-jurisdiction <ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org<mailto:ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org>>
                        Cc: "acct-staff at icann.org<mailto:acct-staff at icann.org>" <acct-staff at icann.org<mailto:acct-staff at icann.org>>
                        Subject: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Question Presented
                        Message-ID:
                                <CA+aOHUTdY0AROjojE9MXcbkL7FJ9Asgv0QvFJAN4TJmR6sT71g at mail.gmail.com<mailto:CA%2BaOHUTdY0AROjojE9MXcbkL7FJ9Asgv0QvFJAN4TJmR6sT71g at mail.gmail.com> <mailto:CA%2BaOHUTdY0AROjojE9MXcbkL7FJ9Asgv0QvFJAN4TJmR6sT71g at mail.gmail.com<mailto:CA%252BaOHUTdY0AROjojE9MXcbkL7FJ9Asgv0QvFJAN4TJmR6sT71g at mail.gmail.com>> >
                        Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

                        Please see attached.
                        -------------- next part --------------
                        An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
                        URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ws2-jurisdiction/attachments/20170608/d160a9d9/attachment.html <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ws2-jurisdiction/attachments/20170608/d160a9d9/attachment.html> >
                        -------------- next part --------------
                        A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
                        Name: QUESTION ON SCOPE OF CCWG.pdf
                        Type: application/pdf
                        Size: 350997 bytes
                        Desc: not available
                        URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ws2-jurisdiction/attachments/20170608/d160a9d9/QUESTIONONSCOPEOFCCWG.pdf <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ws2-jurisdiction/attachments/20170608/d160a9d9/QUESTIONONSCOPEOFCCWG.pdf> >
                        -------------- next part --------------
                        A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
                        Name: QUESTION ON SCOPE OF CCWG.docx
                        Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
                        Size: 15327 bytes
                        Desc: not available
                        URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ws2-jurisdiction/attachments/20170608/d160a9d9/QUESTIONONSCOPEOFCCWG.docx <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ws2-jurisdiction/attachments/20170608/d160a9d9/QUESTIONONSCOPEOFCCWG.docx> >

                        ------------------------------

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

                        End of Ws2-jurisdiction Digest, Vol 12, Issue 18
                        ************************************************
                        _______________________________________________
                        Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list
                        Ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org<mailto:Ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org>
                        https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction>

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

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