[Ws2-jurisdiction] Question Presented

[Seun Ojedeji]

On 19 Jun 2017 5:44 PM, "Greg Shatan" <gregshatanipc at gmail.com> wrote:

Milton,

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.


SO: The thing is, such framing should be happening at the plenary and if
the Co-Chairs are doing that at subgroup level, it should be to gather
feedback and not to make a conclusive decision.


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,


SO: Actually am not sure what the above mean but won't overflog this since
the Co-Chairs have been duly notified and will address the matter. I will
just note that I take the words of the Co-Chairs strongly and I think that
should be the norm (perhaps it's the RIR mentality that is robbing on me).

. I hope that everyone is interested in substantive debate, and I hope to
see plenty of it in this group in the coming weeks.


SO: That's the thing Greg, what is substantive isn't same for everyone.
Certainly not for all volunteers ;-)

Cheers!


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.
>

_______________________________________________
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/20170619/5adeea7f/attachment.html>