[Ws2-jurisdiction] Staying Focused in the Jurisdiction Subgroup

[Kavouss Arasteh]

Dear Jorge,
I think you have immediately converted the issue of finding problem into
the Draft Q4 which is only one face of the problem.
There are other problems.
I think questions 1to be modified to make it general and not selective and
Q3 must be totally suppressed for the reasons I have given.
For Q 4 may be we need to finalize alternative 1,BUT these are the ending
to identify problems.
I have extracted 22 questions dated 13 December FROM THE EXCHANGE OF
E-MAILS AND THOSE ARE AMONG THE PROBLEMS
I once again strongly oppose to send out Question 3 and reiterate the
modification to Q1 and finding a possible alternative for Q4 4.
Regards
Kavouss

2016-12-30 12:09 GMT+01:00 <Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch>:

> Dear Greg
>
> I support your approach (let's identify potential problems first and then
> have a look at possible remedies).
>
> To overcome this impasse I feel a generous/flecible/open position to
> question 4 would help, where Phil's wording seemed to garner enough
>  traction.
>
> kind regards and happy New Year!
>
> Jorge
>
> ________________________________
>
> Von: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com>
> Datum: 30. Dezember 2016 um 08:14:19 MEZ
> An: ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org <ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org>
> Betreff: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Staying Focused in the Jurisdiction Subgroup
>
> All,
>
> We are getting ahead of ourselves.  Meanwhile, we're not doing the things
> we should be doing, which will only slow us down in the end.
>
> In particular, the discussions of possible "remedies", such as "immunity"
> or alternative structures for ICANN are, at best, premature, and need to be
> set aside.  We need to focus the subgroup on problems first, consistent
> with our work plan.  Problems will lead to remedies, just as diagnosis
> leads to treatment.
>
> Specifically, the subgroup needs to concentrate on taking suggestions for
> possible problems arising from "ICANN's jurisdiction" from participants,
> really discussing these suggestions in the subgroup, and determining as a
> subgroup whether these suggestions are in fact problems that should be
> included in our analysis.
>
> I'm specifically using "problems" and not "issues", based on a very good
> suggestion from Phil Corwin: "Rather than issues, I believe we should be
> focus on on demonstrable problems. Issues can just consists of debating
> points absent real world evidence of something broken or substantially
> sub-optimal requiring a remedy." "Problems" conveys much better that we are
> look for concrete, specific items arising from "ICANN's jurisdiction,"
> particularly with regard to the actual operation of policies and
> accountability mechanisms (as stated in Annex 12).
>
> After that is done, and the subgroup has an agreed list of problems, we
> will then turn our focus to considering specific possible remedies for
> specific problems.  Discussions of remedies should be held until that
> time.  Discussing remedies now will only delay the proper discussion of
> remedies by the subgroup.
>
> This has also distracted us from resolving issues with the questionnaire.
> On Tuesday, I sent out a follow-up email on the questionnaire under the
> Subject "Focus, Working Method and Revisions to Proposed Questions:
> RESPONSE REQUESTED."  So far, there have been very few responses.  Please
> read and respond to that email.  We need to see if there is a compromise
> regarding Question 4 that will garner broad support in the subgroup and
> satisfy most (if not all) objections raised in the subgroup.
>
> Thank you.
>
> Greg
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/f8d911de/attachment.html>