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

Fri Dec 30 17:20:09 UTC 2016

I am forwarding the following message from Seun Ojedeji to the Jurisdiction
list, as he currently has Observer status and cannot post.

Greg

On Fri, Dec 30, 2016 at 2:37 AM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com>
wrote:

> The suggested way forward seem fine but I would suggest modifying
> alternative 1 of question 4 by asking for just the "disadvantages" as I
> don't think there is need to ask for advantages since the goal of the
> question is to identify issues (okay problems - just playing around with
> words).
>
> Regards
> PS: Can't remember if I have posting rights. Otherwise, kindly help
> forward to list.
>
> Sent from my LG G4
> Kindly excuse brevity and typos
>
> On 30 Dec 2016 8:27 a.m., "Greg Shatan" <gregshatanipc at gmail.com> 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>
>> 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
>>
>>
>> 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>
>> 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" <
>> 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/20161230/1ffec3b9/attachment-0001.html>