[Ws2-jurisdiction] Question Presented

[Greg Shatan]

Milton,

I actually agree with you, up to a point.  The slide you refer to was a
strawman and a jumping-off point for discussion.  By the second call, last
week, we had moved away from that slide and from discussing the issue in
terms of scope.  The CCWG Co-Chairs instead framed the issue around the
question "what will get sufficient traction in the group" vs. subjects that
will not get sufficient traction, and thus would not lead to a consensus
recommendation.

However, I don't think this was an instance of anyone preempting a
discussion, much less dishonestly.  As noted, no issues have been
foreclosed by the Co-Chair's decision, which is aligned with your point #2
-- the "lack of traction" for recommending changes to ICANN's corporate
status. I hope that everyone is interested in substantive debate, and I
hope to see plenty of it in this group in the coming weeks.

Best regards,

Greg

On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 10:41 AM John Laprise <jlaprise at gmail.com> wrote:

> +1
>
>
>
> Best regards,
>
>
>
> John Laprise, Ph.D.
>
> Principal Consultant
>
>
>
> http://www.linkedin.com/in/jplaprise/
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* ws2-jurisdiction-bounces at icann.org [mailto:
> ws2-jurisdiction-bounces at icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Mueller, Milton L
> *Sent:* Monday, June 19, 2017 9:40 AM
> *To:* Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com>; ws2-jurisdiction <
> ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org>
> *Cc:* acct-staff at icann.org
> *Subject:* Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Question Presented
>
>
>
> Please pardon my late intervention. We were presented with this question:
>
>
>
> *Question: Is considering or recommending changes to ICANN's status as a
> not-for-profit California corporation within the scope of the Subgroup?*
>
>
>
> Two things seem obvious to me:
>
>    1. The issue IS within the intended scope of the subgroup, and
>
>
>    1. There is overwhelming consensus AGAINST recommending changes to
>    ICANN’s status as a nonprofit California public benefit corporation.
>
>
>
> It seems to me that most of the debate is confusing issue #1 with issue
> #2. The entire discussion has not developed any real alternative, much less
> a clearly superior one, to California jurisdiction. The identified problems
> with US jurisdiction (mainly OFAC) can be addressed without moving ICANN’s
> place of incorporation. So let’s stop trying to dishonestly pre-empt
> resolution of the jurisdiction issue by ruling certain discussions “out of
> scope.”  Let’s resolve it honestly by developing and acknowledging
> consensus around the fact that other than the meaningless mirage of
> “international jurisdiction” there is no better framework within which to
> work than California law.
>
>
>
> The debate about scope, in other words, is a diversion from the
> substantive issue, and I wish the chairs and the Americans in the subgroup
> would stop trying to pre-empt substantive debate with scope debate.
>
>
>
> I will not be in Johannesburg so I hope people who agree with me can take
> this perspective into the f2f meeting.
>
>
>
> Dr. Milton L. Mueller
>
> Professor, School of Public Policy
>
> Georgia Institute of Technology
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* ws2-jurisdiction-bounces at icann.org [
> mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces at icann.org
> <ws2-jurisdiction-bounces at icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Greg Shatan
> *Sent:* Thursday, June 8, 2017 9:29 AM
> *To:* ws2-jurisdiction <ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org>
> *Cc:* acct-staff at icann.org
> *Subject:* [Ws2-jurisdiction] Question Presented
>
>
>
> Please see attached.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ws2-jurisdiction/attachments/20170619/9debfa4f/attachment.html>