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

Sat Dec 31 22:13:59 UTC 2016

Dear All,
People pèreventing us to progess by pushing for Q

2016-12-31 22:00 GMT+01:00 McAuley, David <dmcauley at verisign.com>:

> Thank you Greg for trying to help us navigate this difficult discussion.
>
>
>
> If we somehow end up with questions 1-4 then I would support your
> strawman, except for the preamble where I support the proposed preamble.
>
>
>
> In the meantime I am puzzled by where we find ourselves.
>
>
>
> The poll regarding the proposed questions had 31 respondents. Questions
> 1-3 were supported by very wide margin, 29-2. Question 4 was supported by a
> very narrow margin, 17-14. And what amounted to question 5 (“If Question 4
> is not approved, I support sending out a questionnaire containing only
> Questions 1-3”) was supported by a vote of 19-8 (with 4 not answering), a
> far greater margin than Q4.
>
>
>
> What happened to the notion of sending Q’s 1-3 without Q4 based on the
> polling results? Question 5 decided Question 4 and the format of the survey
> already. As suggested by others, we should not waste any more time on this.
>
>
>
> I suspect the questionnaire will be the primary focus of our call on
> Thursday Jan. 5. I will re-read a number of e-mails on the various sides of
> this issue and comment then.
>
>
>
> But anticipation of that call raises a point that I believe is making our
> task more difficult. Participation rates are low, not just here but across
> WS2. Given the length and intensity of WS1 that may be understandable,
> nonetheless we are grappling with issues/questions that seem better suited
> to a forum other than WS2.
>
>
>
> Back in September I wrote on list why I thought ICANN’s location was out
> of our scope – I stand by that e-mail (http://mm.icann.org/
> pipermail/ws2-jurisdiction/2016-September/000099.html). The questions we
> are wrestling with on list now seem far beyond our ability to answer, much
> less fix.
>
>
>
> I am not saying the questions are improper or should never be raised – I
> am saying that they appear beyond our scope and capability.
>
>
>
> David
>
>
>
> David McAuley
>
> International Policy Manager
>
> Verisign Inc.
>
> 703-948-4154 <(703)%20948-4154>
>
>
>
> *From:* ws2-jurisdiction-bounces at icann.org [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-
> bounces at icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Greg Shatan
> *Sent:* Friday, December 30, 2016 2:27 AM
> *To:* ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org
> *Subject:* [EXTERNAL] [Ws2-jurisdiction] REMINDER: Focus, Working Method
> and Revisions to Proposed Questions: RESPONSE REQUESTED [was: Jurisdiction
> Proposed Questions and Poll Results]
>
>
>
> 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/20161231/9ae5001d/attachment-0001.html>