[Ws2-jurisdiction] Question Presented

[Seun Ojedeji]

On 19 Jun 2017 8:15 PM, "Greg Shatan" <gregshatanipc at gmail.com> wrote:



On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 3:04 PM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com>
wrote:

> 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.
>
​GS:  You'll need to take the Co-Chairs' activities up with the Co-Chairs.


SO: I have done the needful and they have kindly and promptly responded,
but you seem to keep speaking for/on behalf them hence I needed to
follow-up.

I am curious, however to know, the source in the Charter for your view?​



SO: Am also curious on what charter source permits​ the Co-Chairs to make a
decision as this within subgroup prior to engaging/consulting the plenary.


>
> . 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 ;-)
>
​
GS: Seun, by "substantive," I only mean "relating to substance, relating to
the underlying facts and issues before the Subgroup" (as opposed to
procedural).  I should hope that what is substantive is the same for
everyone, even if what is most significant is not the same for everyone....​



SO: Okay noted Sir, apologies for talking procedural but note that my talk
was a response ;-). Irrespective, if I may ask, apart from the review of
ligations stuff what are the issues before the subgroup?

Regards


​Greg​


> 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-bounc
>> es 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-bounc
>> es 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/20170619/93e6c3eb/attachment.html>