[Ws2-jurisdiction] Documents for upcoming meeting

[parminder]

First I must apologise to Greg who had asked all to attend the last f2f
call if they had a view on the subject -- I got taken down by viral
fever the day of the call and have recovered only now . So pl allow me
to express my views as below.

Seeing the docs on the so-called  different positions forwarded for this
meeting I am really confused as to what we are trying to do at this late
stage. Why and how did we come to the question of whether ICANN's US/
California incorporation is to be taken an "untouchable issue"? The
process begun with the 4 conditions set up by NTIA, and this "condition"
was not there. I have not seen it added since. The jurisdiction issue
was picked up as an important one by many right at the start of the CCWG
process. At that stage we were told that work-stream 1 will only deal
with such issues that "must" be resolved for the transition to take
place. Since what jurisdiction applies to ICANN is not one such
question, it will be dealt by work stream 2. . The WS2 mandate doc goes
into layers of jurisdiction with the place of incorporation being a key
layer.... How then suddenly have we been taken up by this existentialist
doubt whether the issue is at all in our mandate or not? And since a lot
of people who are raising this doubt were also among the ones initially
most eager to push the jurisdiction issue to work stream 2  with the
"not necessary to resolve for IANA transition" logic, it appears, in
fact, rather dishonest to claim now that well, work stream 1's outputs
have already anticipated and closed this issue.  This is very frustrating.

In the longer doc "potential position alternatives", in section 1, I
cant see the difference between approach A and B. They look exactly the
same to me -- the group proceeds with the assumption that ICANN will
remain incorporated in US/ California and this part is not up for
discussion or recs. Cant understand why a 2 positions situation is being
presented as 3 positions? One position wants to take ICANN US/ Calif.
incorporation as given and incontestable and the other position does not
agree with it.

Not clear how the subject matter of section II is different from sec I?
Here, approach C which is put as " We should look to solve the problems
ICANN jurisdiction raise". If that is not a valid short form of what
this group is mandated to do, I really need to be told what it has been
trying to do!!??

And in section III, about possible immunity for ICANN, approach A speaks
of partial (or tailored) immunity, which precisely means to exclude
those laws that are needed to keep ICANN's accountability mechanisms
functioning. In so far as the next two approaches B and C focus on
accountability mechanisms, I dont see how the three approaches are
mutually exclusive.

The document on 'distillation of positions" is no clearer. Once again
approaches in the first two columns looks the same to me. The third
column where the approach of lets not wait to sort out the ICANN's
incorporation question would be agreeable to some participants is gotten
heavily burdened in the last row with the proposal to seek legal advice
on what change of incorporation (and not immunity, mind it) will do to
work stream 1 outputs ....

I am unable to consider this whole exercise as fair.

parminder


On Wednesday 14 June 2017 11:50 AM, Greg Shatan wrote:
> All,
>
> In addition to the agenda, the summaries we will discuss are attached.
>
> Also attached is the chart containing the "raw" statements made during
> the prior call (plus the changes suggested by Thiago on the list), as
> well as a distillation of those statements (since a number were
> essentially repetitive or overlapping).
>
> Greg
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list
> Ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ws2-jurisdiction/attachments/20170614/6dca1f76/attachment.html>