[Ws2-jurisdiction] [CCWG-ACCT] Request for Clarification (Was Re: Fwd: Caption Notes-Recordings-Transcript links for Jurisdiction Meeting #35 - 14 June 2017)

Mon Jun 19 00:26:15 UTC 2017

Paul,
You misunderstood me and as usual categorically opposing to ANY
comments that I made during the last 3 years.
I do not associate any importance to that
Regards
Kavouss

2017-06-19 1:42 GMT+02:00 Paul Rosenzweig <
paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com>:

> Needless to say, Thomas, you have my full support.  And Kavouss assertion
> that you acted beyond your remit is without foundation in either fact or
> any of our policy documents.  I regret only that I cannot join you in
> Johannesburg to personally support the timely and thoughtful intervention
> of the co-chairs.
>
>
>
> Paul
>
>
>
> Paul Rosenzweig
>
> paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com
>
> O: +1 (202) 547-0660 <(202)%20547-0660>
>
> M: +1 (202) 329-9650 <(202)%20329-9650>
>
> VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 <(202)%20738-1739>
>
> www.redbranchconsulting.com
>
> My PGP Key: https://keys.mailvelope.com/pks/lookup?op=get&search=
> 0x9A830097CA066684
>
>
>
> *From:* accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org [mailto:
> accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Arasteh
> *Sent:* Saturday, June 17, 2017 7:47 PM
> *To:* Thomas Rickert <rickert at anwaelte.de>
> *Cc:* Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-
> community at icann.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Request for Clarification (Was Re:
> [Ws2-jurisdiction] Fwd: Caption Notes-Recordings-Transcript links for
> Jurisdiction Meeting #35 - 14 June 2017)
>
>
>
> Thomas
>
> But you should have consulted CCWG st least by sending message and asking
> their views and NOT ALL OF SUUDEN coming and announcing the decision of
> Co-Chairs.
>
> No such authority was entrusted to you. It was much beyond your authority.
>
> You need to formally explain to the f2f meeting on the over representation
> of your personal views which were not coordinated with CCWG.
>
> I am sure all those who wanted no change from the day one would support
> you even if they have not  pushed you to
>
> Kavouss
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>
> On 17 Jun 2017, at 03:55, Thomas Rickert <rickert at anwaelte.de> wrote:
>
> Dear Seun,
>
> thanks for your note.
>
>
>
> During the last subgroup’s call I have explained to the sub team that we
> would report to the plenary, so please rest assured that keeping the CCWG
> in the loop was always planned.
>
>
>
> In a few days, the CCWG will convene for its meeting at ICANN59.
>
>
>
> We will address this issue during that session.
>
>
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Thomas
>
>
>
>
>
> Am 17.06.2017 um 06:45 schrieb Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com>:
>
>
>
> Dear Co-Chairs,
>
>
>
> I was not in attendance at the last plenary in May (and perhaps a couple
> of previous ones) but do follow the list and have just also checked the
> list archive but can't seem to find any thread relating to consensus
> building of the CCWG which then resulted to the decision of the Co-Chairs
> that was presented at the jurisdiction subgroup's last meeting.
>
>
>
> May I request clarification on how you arrived at that decision? Ofcourse
> I certainly may have missed something.
>
>
>
> Regards
>
>
>
> On 16 Jun 2017 7:33 PM, "Greg Shatan" <gregshatanipc at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Seun,
>
>
>
> Thanks for your comments.  With regard to your concerns about the
> co-chairs (all but #2), you should take those up with the co-chairs.  It
> sounds like some things need to be clarified.
>
>
>
> The significance of the comments from those opposed to the decision can be
> weighed by the Plenary.  While the Subgroup's support was at a sufficient
> level to be called consensus, such support of the Subgroup for the
> Co-Chairs' decision was welcome, but not necessary.  Finally , not to speak
> for the Co-Chairs, but since the motivating factor here was to narrow our
> options by excluding alternatives that would not get consensus support,
> checking numbers is relevant.
>
>
>
> Best regards,
>
>
>
> Greg
>
>
>
> On Fri, Jun 16, 2017 at 2:39 AM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> 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> 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>
> 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> 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>
> 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>
> Cc: "ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org" <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)
>
> [image: Image removed by sender.]
>
> Skype:  brenda.brewer.icann
>
> Phone:  1-310-745-1107 <(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
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list
> Ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> 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/20170619/ec7839d0/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 407 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ws2-jurisdiction/attachments/20170619/ec7839d0/image001-0001.jpg>