[CCWG-ACCT] Caption Notes-Recordings-Transcript links for Jurisdiction Meeting #35 - 14 June 2017

[Greg Shatan]

Seun,

As noted in Thomas's statement, no issues are foreclosed and all are
available for discussion.  I would be surprised if there issues that can
*only* be resolved or mitigated in such manner.  This narrowing of the
Subgroup's focus clarifies that where we are considering recommendations to
resolve issues, we need to focus on workable resolutions that will gain
consensus in the group.  I hope that everyone will join in that effort,
even those who wanted no options foreclosed.

Greg

On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 3:57 PM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Hello, kindly find inline:
>
> On 15 Jun 2017 6:46 PM, "MSSI Secretariat" <mssi-secretariat at icann.org>
> wrote:
>
> *Decisions:*
>
>    - Thomas Rickert for the CCWG-Accountability Co-Chairs, We have
>    concluded that the Jurisdiction sub-group will take Californian
>    jurisdiction as a base line for all its recommendations, and that the
>    sub-team not pursue recommendations to change ICANN's jurisdiction of
>    incorporation, location of headquarters or seek immunity for ICANN.  With
>    this decision we are recognizing that there is no possibility that there
>    would be consensus for an immunity based concept or a change of place of
>    incorporation.  As such I would establish in the minutes of this call that
>    we focus on the solution that gets most traction.  Recognizing that this
>    does not eliminate, as I think Avri said during last week's call, that we
>    can discuss all issues that might arise during the deliberations.  But that
>    we actually focus on the status quo being Californian law and place of
>    incorporation. and work on solutions that are founded on this.
>
>
> SO: Based on the statement above it seem to me that this was decided by
> the CCWG plenary and not necessarily by the jurisdiction subgroup. I did
> not attend the call but I want to assume the appropriate consensus process
> was followed in the decision making process. Nevermind that participation
> in WS2 so far has somewhat reduced hence some level of diversity may be
> lacking (ofcourse this is probably nobody's fault)
>
> That said, as much as I personally don't see any significant reason for a
> change of jurisdiction at this time, I also believe that we should be open
> to formally log any issues/concerns that has been identified in our final
> report especially if the "only" solution to resolving such issue falls
> within the category of what we have barred ourselves from discussing.
>
> We should recognise that those issues/concerns are there and hopefully in
> future another group or generation can take it up and find a workable
> solution to them (perhaps the issue would have resolved itself by then or
> there will be more compelling reason to take nuclear route).
>
> Regards
>
>
>
>    -
>
>
>
> *Action Items:*
>
>    - (none)
>
>
>
> *Requests:*
>
>    - (none)
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20170615/930ca5e9/attachment.html>