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

[Kris Seeburn]

+ 1 to that as well. We are constrained to certain conditions and jurisdiction cannot be even thought ofin light of the conditions stipulated. 

Iam all for looking at what is important accountability, inclusiveness, transparency which are what we can only do. transfering jurisdiction is out of our hands.


> On Jul 6, 2017, at 12:01 PM, 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

Kris Seeburn
seeburn.k at gmail.com
www.linkedin.com/in/kseeburn/ <http://www.linkedin.com/in/kseeburn/>




-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20170706/a4aeb70e/attachment-0001.html>