[Ws2-jurisdiction] Fwd: [CCWG-ACCT] Caption Notes-Recordings-Transcript links for Jurisdiction Meeting #35 - 14 June 2017

Fri Jun 16 13:41:40 UTC 2017

I want to add two notes to this latest series of emails.

First, in my opinion Greg has handled this matter fairly – singlehandedly helping navigate what is probably the most contentious issue in all of WS2. Being a rapporteur can at times be a thankless job – I note my thanks to Greg for his work in this subgroup.

Second, this issue (HQ location) has been discussed a great deal since last summer. The positions have had a fair airing. And so I (1) continue to strongly support Thomas’s intervention in the last meeting, including a reminder about minority statements; (2) note that silence amidst a running commentary does not mean acquiescence or agreement; and (3) look forward to the plenary and moving on.

Best regards,

David

David McAuley

Sr International Policy & Business Development Manager

Verisign Inc.

703-948-4154

From: ws2-jurisdiction-bounces at icann.org [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Seun Ojedeji
Sent: Friday, June 16, 2017 2:40 AM
To: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com>
Cc: ws2-jurisdiction <ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Fwd: [CCWG-ACCT] Caption Notes-Recordings-Transcript links for Jurisdiction Meeting #35 - 14 June 2017

Hello Greg,

Thanks for your clarification so based on your explanation:

1. The co-chairs of the CCWG presented a personal decision of theirs and not of the plenary? I had thought co-chairs are supposed to observe discussion within the CCWG plenary and make their decision based on that.

2. The subgroup then supported the decision of the co-chairs (hopefully by consensus?). May I know if the subgroup decision making is only limited to those who attend meeting calls? I think it's important to consider the significance of the comments raised by the few members you indicated opposed as you and I know that just checking numbers for/against in this case will not do necessary justice to the matter at hand.

3. Saying that this will now be decided by the plenary after the co-chairs of the plenary already made a declaration/decision about the subject matter sounds like a procedural flaw to me.

The plenary co-chairs have done extremely well in coordinating the CCWG since WS1 and I hope this will not be an exception. I will apply same comment to subgroup leads as well.

Regards

PS: my participation here remains as an end user affiliated to atlarge and NOT as any other hat that I may wear.

On 16 Jun 2017 12:50 AM, "Greg Shatan" <gregshatanipc at gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>> wrote:

   Seun,

   Thank you for asking.  Let me clarify for you and others where we are procedurally. Yes, issues relating to clarity on scope are ultimately to be determined by the CCWG plenary. As you note, Thomas was speaking for the co-Chairs, and as the co-chairs stated, after almost a year of deliberations in this group, they could not see the possibility of consensus on recommendations which included these elements.   The decision presented by Thomas was a decision by the co-Chairs. It was good that bulk of the Subgroup supported the decision on the call, but it should not be viewed as a Subgroup action per se.  As of the end of the call, the discussion and decision now goes to the Plenary. Unless the decision changes there, that ends the discussion within the CCWG.

   Greg

   On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 7:34 PM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com<mailto:seun.ojedeji at gmail.com>> wrote:

      Hello Greg,

      In the summary sent by staff the decision extract starts with the following:

      "Thomas Rickert for the CCWG-Accountability Co-Chairs, We have concluded that......."

      Please can you clarify if this decision was made by the subgroup or by the CCWG plenary as well? As I am somewhat unclear who is declaring/making decisions on things here.

      If am right, the subgroup makes recommendations to the plenary who then decides, it also seem to me that issues relating to clarity on scope should be better determined by the CCWG plenary.

      Regards

      On 15 Jun 2017 10:27 PM, "Greg Shatan" <gregshatanipc at gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>> wrote:

         Jurisdiction Subgroup Members,

         As noted below, after two full meetings devoted to the topic, the Subgroup arrived at a decision (excerpted verbatim from the transcript in the email below).  For convenience, here it is again:

            We have concluded that the Jurisdiction sub-group will take California jurisdiction as a base line for all its recommendations, and that the sub-team not pursue recommendations to change ICANN's jurisdiction of incorporation, location of headquarters or seek immunity for ICANN.  With this decision we are recognizing that there is no possibility that there would be consensus for an immunity based concept or a change of place of incorporation.  As such I would establish in the minutes of this call that we focus on the solution that gets most traction.  Recognizing that this does not eliminate, as I think Avri said during last week's call, that we can discuss all issues that might arise during the deliberations.  But that we actually focus on the status quo being California law and place of incorporation. and work on solutions that are founded on this.

         Opposition was noted from four participants on the call (including one who left before the end, but had made his position clear.

         This decision will now be referred to the Plenary, consistent with CCWG procedures.

         With this, I believe that it is imperative that we return to and focus on identifying potential issues, deciding whether these are in fact issues within our remit, discussing those issues and making recommendations for resolving those issues.

         Greg

         ---------- Forwarded message ----------
         From: MSSI Secretariat <mssi-secretariat at icann.org<mailto:mssi-secretariat at icann.org>>
         Date: Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 1:46 PM
         Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] Caption Notes-Recordings-Transcript links for Jurisdiction Meeting #35 - 14 June 2017
         To: CCWG Accountability <accountability-cross-community at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org>>
         Cc: "ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org<mailto:ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org>" <ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org<mailto:ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org>>

         Hello all,

         The caption notes, recordings and transcripts for CCWG Accountability WS2 Jurisdiction Subgroup Meeting #35– 14 June 2017 will be available here:   https://community.icann.org/x/GSDwAw

         A copy of the action items and raw caption notes may be found below.

         With kind regards,

         Brenda Brewer, Projects & Operations Assistant

         Multistakeholder Strategy & Strategic Initiatives (MSSI)

         Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)

         Skype:  brenda.brewer.icann

         Phone:  1-310-745-1107<tel:(310)%20745-1107>

         Raw Captioning Notes

         Please note that these are the unofficial transcript. Official transcript will be posted 2-3 days after the call

         *      Word Doc<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/66068505/Jurisdicton_0614ICANN1300UTC.RTF?version=1&modificationDate=1497462625000&api=v2>
         *      PDF<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/66068505/Jurisdiction_0614ICANN1300UTC.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1497462637000&api=v2>

         Decisions:

         *      Thomas Rickert for the CCWG-Accountability Co-Chairs, We have concluded that the Jurisdiction sub-group will take Californian jurisdiction as a base line for all its recommendations, and that the sub-team not pursue recommendations to change ICANN's jurisdiction of incorporation, location of headquarters or seek immunity for ICANN.  With this decision we are recognizing that there is no possibility that there would be consensus for an immunity based concept or a change of place of incorporation.  As such I would establish in the minutes of this call that we focus on the solution that gets most traction.  Recognizing that this does not eliminate, as I think Avri said during last week's call, that we can discuss all issues that might arise during the deliberations.  But that we actually focus on the status quo being Californian law and place of incorporation. and work on solutions that are founded on this.

         Action Items:

         *      (none)

         Requests:

         *      (none)

         _______________________________________________
         Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
         Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>
         https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

         _______________________________________________
         Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list
         Ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org<mailto: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/20170616/8b5c4a62/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 5172 bytes
Desc: image001.png
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ws2-jurisdiction/attachments/20170616/8b5c4a62/image001-0001.png>