[Ws2-jurisdiction] REMINDER: Focus, Working Method and Revisions to Proposed Questions: RESPONSE REQUESTED [was: Jurisdiction Proposed Questions and Poll Results]

Fri Dec 30 07:56:24 UTC 2016

Greg

I prepfer a shorter preamble as in Alternative 1, but before that, I
would like to ask where does this wording come from

"...the Jurisdiction subgroup is addressing jurisdiction-related
questions, including how choice of jurisdiction and applicable laws for
dispute settlement impact ICANN's accountability.

Is it ad verbatim from an authoritative text or a kind of paraphrasing
the mandate... I would especially want to know why this part ends with
"..impact ICANN's accountability" and not with "impact actual operation
of policies and accountability mechanisms".... In most text on this
group's mandate I see both "actual operation of policies" and
"accountability mechanism" stated together. Why would we now limit this
process to looking at the 'Impact on ICANN's accountability" alone. As
you would have seen, most of the discussion here pertained to impact of
jurisdiction on "actual operation of policies". We cannot leave that out.
Thanks, parminder

On Friday 30 December 2016 12:57 PM, Greg Shatan wrote:
> REMINDER to READ this email and RESPOND, at least with regard to the
> questionnaire (see attachment).  I've slightly revised the email for
> clarity.
>
> To try and focus this discussion, I'll provide a strawman for how to
> deal with the alternatives:
>
> Preamble -- Use Alternative 1.
> Question 1 -- Use Alternative 1.
> Question 2 -- No change
> Question 3 -- No change.
> Question 4 -- Use Alternative 1.
>
> Thank you for your responses.
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: *Greg Shatan* <gregshatanipc at gmail.com
> <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>>
> Date: Tue, Dec 27, 2016 at 3:28 PM
> Subject: Focus, Working Method and Revisions to Proposed Questions:
> RESPONSE REQUESTED [was: Jurisdiction Proposed Questions and Poll Results]
> To: ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org>
>
>
> All,
>
> I'm sending this to the Jurisdiction subgroup list, since this was
> initially send to a discussion thread on jurisdiction taking place on
> the CCWG list. 
>
> *Please respond here, rather than there.  Thank you.*
>
> Greg
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: *Greg Shatan* <gregshatanipc at gmail.com
> <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>>
> Date: Tue, Dec 27, 2016 at 2:56 AM
> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] RES: Jurisdiction Proposed Questions and Poll
> Results
> To: "accountability-cross-community at icann.org
> <mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org>"
> <accountability-cross-community at icann.org
> <mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org>>
>
>
> All:
>
> Two quick but important points:
>
> 1.  We have strayed from the basic topic in front of us, which is to
> decide on the formulation of the questions to be sent out. *
> 
> I have gone through the emails and meeting notes and pulled the
> alternative formulations and revisions in to a single document,
> attached to this email. *   
>
> With regard to question 4, I believe that the best way to move forward
> is to see if one of the alternatives gets stronger support within the
> CCWG.  If we can get to a point where there is broad support for the
> question without significant opposition that may resolve issues
> relating to whether and when this question will be sent out.
>
> 2.  Our overall agreed-upon working method is to first identify,
> discuss and arrive at a list of
> problems
> , and then move on to identifying, discussing and arriving at a list
> of potential remedies for each
> problem
>  on our list.  We are still working on
> problems
> .  For a remedy to be up for discussion when we move to discussing
> remedies, that remedy needs to provide a solution to a
>  problem
> .  We can't discuss a potential remedy without having a
>  problem
> it is intended to solve.  If there is a potential "remedy" but it does
> not solve any of our
> problems
> , we won't discuss it.  
>
> We've already put aside one potential "remedy" until we see whether we
> identify any
> problems
>  it would solve -- the "remedy" of changing ICANN's jurisdiction of
> incorporation or headquarters location.  "Immunity" is another
> potential remedy that we need to deal with the same way.  Skipping
> forward to discussions of remedies is only slowing down our discussion of
> problems
> .  I strongly suggest we refocus on
> problems
> , so that we can get to the discussion of remedies.  Once we've agreed
> on a list of
> problems
> , a discussion of remedies will be more productive.
>
> Our working method of dealing with
> problems
>  first and then remedies may also help us find agreement on a way to
> deal with question 4.  Questions 1-3 clearly deal with issues. 
> Perhaps a version of question 4 that is limited to asking for
> problems
>  will get broader support ("Alternative 1" on the attachment may fit
> this description.)
>
> Greg
>
> _The following responses were received on the Accountability list_:
>
> *Parminder*: 
> Greg/ All
>
> I think the Alternative 1, which you take as likely candidate for
> broader support, is fine. I list this formulation below:
>
> What are the advantages or disadvantages, if any, relating to ICANN's
> jurisdiction*, particularly with regard to the actual operation of
> ICANN’s policies and accountability mechanisms? Please support your
> response with appropriate examples, references to specific laws, case
> studies, other studies, and analysis. In particular, please indicate
> if there are current or past instances that highlight such advantages
> or problems.
>
> (* For these questions, “ICANN’s jurisdiction” refers to (a) ICANN
> being subject to U.S. and California law as a result of its
> incorporation and location in California, (b) ICANN being subject to
> the laws of any other country as a result of its location within or
> contacts with that country, or (c) any “choice of law” or venue
> provisions in agreements with ICANN.)
>
> ENDS
>
> Lets move on with it. We are spending too much time on framing a question.
>
> *Kavouss Arasteh: *
> Grec,
> Tks again,
> As I said I believe ,it is counter productive to discuss many alternative,
> I could agree with formulation of Parminder
> Regards
> Kavouss
>
> *Sam Lanfranco:*
> Greg, 
>
> Thank you for presenting alternatives for reaching agreement on
> a/ Roadmap for Moving Forward to identify operational issues embedded
> in the overall “jurisdiction” issue/. It is important to recognize
> that what is being proposed is the choice of roadmap for moving
> forward. Where this takes us will flow from the assembly of evidence,
> the application of analysis, and the resulting array of possible
> options for addressing jurisdiction base operational issues.  
>
> Sam Lanfranco*
> *
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20161230/9bc49bb9/attachment.html>