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

Sun Jun 18 23:44:35 UTC 2017

My dear Thiago

While you may disagree with the decision reached, something I completely
understand, you certainly do yourself no credit by impugning Greg's
management of this subgroup.  His tolerance and patience have been
exemplary.  Unlike you, I find the resolution we have reached 6 months too
late, rather than too early.

Paul

Paul Rosenzweig

 <mailto:paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com>
paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com

O: +1 (202) 547-0660

M: +1 (202) 329-9650

VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739

 <http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/> www.redbranchconsulting.com

My PGP Key:
<https://keys.mailvelope.com/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x9A830097CA066684>
https://keys.mailvelope.com/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x9A830097CA066684

From: ws2-jurisdiction-bounces at icann.org
[mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Thiago Braz Jardim
Oliveira
Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2017 6:17 PM
To: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com>; ws2-jurisdiction
<ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org>
Subject: [Ws2-jurisdiction] RES: Fwd: [CCWG-ACCT] Caption
Notes-Recordings-Transcript links for Jurisdiction Meeting #35 - 14 June
2017

Dear Greg,

I'm afraid I'll have to challenge your suggestion that two full meetings
were devoted to considering the terms of the decision supposedly arrived at
in the very last minutes of yesterday's call. We moved from debating a
proposal of yours to have a question you drafted submitted to the plenary,
then past that question to a table where different approaches were gathered,
and then to another table. At no point did we really consider the different
approaches nor their substance, nor did you as rapporteur ensure that
objections or support for the different approaches were tested and noted.
Then, it was only in the very last minutes of yesterday's call that the
formulation suggested by Thomas first appeared, who seemed to argue it was
in line with Avri's suggestion in the previous meeting, and, because of
that, that it would have garnered some support. Now, we all saw that the
formulation does not reflect what Avri really said, so not even with a
stretch of imagination it is accurate to affirm that the decision was
arrived at after discussion. The expedite (not to say expedient) manner in
which that proposal was presented and assumed to reflect consensus is quite
worrying.

In the interest of not having a "minority" statement that would later reveal
to be a "majority" statement, I assume the best course of action would be to
subject to the scrutiny of the Subgroup what was raised and supposedly
decided during the last minutes of yesterday's call, in a transparent way,
with clear deadlines for reactions, and only then validate any decision.

Best,

Thiago

  _____  

De: ws2-jurisdiction-bounces at icann.org
<mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces at icann.org>
[ws2-jurisdiction-bounces at icann.org] em nome de Greg Shatan
[gregshatanipc at gmail.com]
Enviado: quinta-feira, 15 de junho de 2017 18:27
Para: ws2-jurisdiction
Assunto: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Fwd: [CCWG-ACCT] Caption
Notes-Recordings-Transcript links for Jurisdiction Meeting #35 - 14 June
2017

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_0614I
CANN1300UTC.RTF?version=1&modificationDate=1497462625000&api=v2> 
*	PDF
<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/66068505/Jurisdiction_0614
ICANN1300UTC.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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ws2-jurisdiction/attachments/20170618/1ff4e290/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 5172 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ws2-jurisdiction/attachments/20170618/1ff4e290/image001-0001.png>