[CCWG-ACCT] Agenda of the next meeting of WS2 jURISDICTION

[Seun Ojedeji]

I will add my +1 to this and will also note that there is now a clear
working method as summarised by Finn, I think this discussion should now
continue at the subgroup level and we only come back to plenary when/if we
don't seem to agree within the subgroup.

However am sure Greg will put in effort (as always) to ensure consensus
views (with diversity strongly put into consideration) prevail within the
subgroup.

Regards

Sent from my mobile
Kindly excuse brevity and typos

On Jul 6, 2017 9:09 AM, "Finn Petersen" <FinPet at erst.dk> wrote:

Dear all,

I agree that we in due time must discuss accountability improvements that
are issue-driven as a consequence of ICANN’s status as a non-for-profit
organization headquartered in California, and where it seems appropriate
discuss remedies such as the question of partial immunity.

I also agree that we should respect fundamental principles of
inclusiveness, democratic,  transparent, non-discriminatory and button-up
approaches.

But I do not agree with the insinuations saying that co-chairs have not
been "fully neutral and impartial”. Instead, I find that now we all have to
be professional, calm and non-emotional, and keep to the issues and
possible solutions.

Have a nice day!

Finn



*Fra:* accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org [mailto:
accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org] *På vegne af *Kavouss
Arasteh
*Sendt:* 5. juli 2017 23:59
*Til:* Thomas Rickert; León Felipe Sánchez Ambía; Jordan Carter; Greg
Shatan; accountability-cross-community at icann.org
*Emne:* [CCWG-ACCT] Agenda of the next meeting of WS2 jURISDICTION











Dear All, I have sent the following few days ago.



Quote



*“Dear Greg, Dear CCWG Accountability Co-Chairs,*



*I hope by sending this legitimate as a valid request I  would not receive
negative reactions by those  distinguished and respectful people who aimed
at full status quo.*



*I like many others expect to see a useful, objective agenda focused on *



*The impact of keeping Venu and applicable law as reluctantly consented ;
by unqualified Consensus at f2f meeting and the ways and means to address
that/ those impact/impacts .In so doing there is the need to identify
ranges of those impacts and find solution for them .Study of applying some
sort of limited immunity would be one tool to address the very problem of
OFAC .We should respect and the very fundamental principle of
inclusiveness, democratic ,transparent, nondiscriminatory and button-up
approach as required in Multistakeholder mechanism .*



*No county or rule of any country shall dominate the rules of other
countries or people.*



*We need to avoids taking and political orientation or motivation .We must
build confidence and unit the people and NOT TO DIVIDE THEM *



*Moreover, we need to address the full sovereignty of countries without
subordinating their national law by the law of a specific country.*



*Greg, you are urged to take a full neutral and impartial position totally
put aside any entity, organization or country to which you are BELONG AND
affiliated.*



*You MUST act as custodian of international public interest without being
biased or influenced by view of any individual.*



*You need to remember that the term majority in its proper context does not
count heads of several people from one or few countries who have the means
and possibilities to comment.*



*You need to take into account the interests of millions of the people that
awaiting the decision of this group.*



*You have been given or accepted a major responsibility and expected to
properly, imperially and neutrally assume those responsibilities.*



*Pls do not go around issues which will take us to nowhere.*



*Pls tackle the heart of the problem and do whatever possible to find out
the term “ Limited Immunity and find out its scope of application.*



*Pls less document more efficient works *



*Pls kindly do not produced tens of pages to materials in which we would be
lost.*



*We all count on you, and knowledge, your skills, your capability*



*Good luck.*



*Kavouss"*



Unquote



I have received an implicit ONE implicit  negatives reaction from one of
you which I totally ignore.



I have not received any reply from Greg regarding the agenda of the first
meeting after ICANN 59.



I wish to reiterate that we need to focus on the Impact/ influence of
location of ICANN in California and the impact/ influence of the applicable
law in CALIFORNIA.



No other issue is expected to be brought up at this stage .



We have been wasting our time for almost one year. We knew from the very
beginning that we will be faced with the arrangements  proposed by Thomas
and reluctantly agreed by some of us.



Let us take from that point.



I hope Greg would act more positively than before rather than getting
into psychological and political discussions.



Let us concentrate on the fact.



What are the impacts?



What is the problems?,



One problem is OFAC



What is the remedial action?



One possible remedial action would be  limited immunity



What are other impacts?'



What are other possible remedial actions



regards



Kavouss













_______________________________________________
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/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20170706/83641f04/attachment-0001.html>