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

[Greg Shatan]

Thiago,

Thank you for your email and suggested edits.  We'll see what support there
is for these edits vs. the original phrasings arrived at on last week's
call.  I would observe that the original phrasings were developed in an
attempt to find somewhat of a middle ground that could gain support from
disparate members of the Subgroup.

We'll also have to see what support there is for your arguments that
choosing an option in Table I is not necessary or appropriate.  There are
certainly some who agree with you, and then there are clearly others who
disagree. By the way, I note your arguments are procedural. It would be
helpful to understand your substantive concerns as well.  I don't
understand where you believe that "conflation" is occurring or how it would
mislead some.  In any event, I think the contrasting approaches are clear
and should not mislead anyone.

Best regards,

Greg

On Mon, Jun 12, 2017 at 10:51 AM, Thiago Braz Jardim Oliveira <
thiago.jardim at itamaraty.gov.br> wrote:

> 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 --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ws2-jurisdiction/attachments/20170613/727dd6bd/attachment.html>