[Ws2-jurisdiction] Google Doc for Jurisdiction Subgroup Status Update

Tue Nov 1 10:55:55 UTC 2016

Parminder,

This treatment of the issue of changing headquarters or incorporation
jurisdiction was discussed on the list and accepted at meeting 7 of the
subgroup.  I agree that there is disagreement on how or even whether to
address this topic, and whether it is in scope.  There are some in the
group who believe that this topic should be definitively closed off and not
revisited by the group.  There are others who wish to discuss it further.
Regardless, discussing the topic on general terms without any context was
becoming circular and blocking the group from consideration of issues that
we are clearly required to deal with.

This treatment is intended as a compromise, allowing us to move forward
with work that is agreed to be within scope, while leaving room to revisit
this issue later and in context.

Let me clarify that there is a world of difference between "closing" a
topic and "putting aside" a topic.  A closed topic is essentially decided
and will not be revisited by the group (absent extraordinary
circumstances).  A topic "put aside" is one that will not be discussed at
the current time, but will be revisited by the group later on.  It is
essential that we try to work in an orderly fashion, and addressing too
many topics simultaneously results in a lack of progress on any of the
topics.  Having spent some time on this topic and *not* being able to close
it (in favor of any determination), the decision was made to put it aside
in order to move forward on other topics.

Nonetheless, I have noted on the status report that you wish to be
disassociated from this statement.

Best regards,

Greg

On Sun, Oct 30, 2016 at 11:35 AM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com
> wrote:

> Dear All, I understood that some documents would be available  on Sunday
> at 13,00 hrs UTC.
> Does that doc, is published ?
> If yes ,could someone forward a copy to me pls.
> Regards
> Kavouss
>
> 2016-10-29 10:30 GMT+02:00 parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>:
>
>> Dear Chairs Greg and Vinay,
>>
>> Thanks for the below.
>>
>> For such an important document that goes out in the name of the sub
>> group, one would expect to be given more time to comment and agree on than
>> just 24 hours. i do not consider this process robust enough to say that
>> this doc comes on the behalf of the group, and to make comments like 'the
>> group has determined......". At least 2-3 days are needed to agree to such
>> a document, to be able to call it a group's document. That would be the
>> normal process in any elist based process.
>>
>> I specifically disassociate myself from the following:
>>
>> "After some initial discussions, the Subgroup determined that changing
>> ICANN's headquarters or incorporation jurisdiction will not be further
>> investigated at this time. However, if an issue is identified by the
>> Subgroup during its work, and the Subgroup can’t find another solution to
>> resolve this issue, we will revisit and examine this concept in the context
>> of the identified issue."
>>
>> 1. I saw no process whereby it can be said the subgroup 'determined' in
>> this manner. In all prior discussions the opinion on this point has been
>> divided - whether this issue continues to be discussed or not..
>>
>> 2. There are many open issues on the table and so can this issue also
>> remain. Why do we need to 'specifically' close or put aside an important
>> issue, or possible solution? This to me appears to suggest a strong
>> prejudice, to which I cannot be a party. I must mention here that while I
>> consider the application of public law  (or as Greg says, in transcript of
>> the online meeting, issues related to the power of the state) a central one
>> here, I do not think that moving ICANN's jurisdiction is the only solution
>> in this regard. However, to specifically put aside this issue does not make
>> any sense to me other than to suggest a strong aversion to this
>> possibility, something which I dont see the subgroup having arrived at
>> anything that can remotely resemble a consensus.
>>
>> I can understand people have different views here, but what I cannot
>> understand is the desire to foreclose discussions on important issues.
>>
>> Best regards, parminder
>>
>>
>>
>> On Friday 28 October 2016 02:26 AM, Greg Shatan wrote:
>>
>> All,
>>
>> Here is a link to the draft Status Update Google doc, for your changes
>> and comments.  I need to review the requirements for this document and may
>> make some changes as well, but I don't anticipate making significant
>> changes to the text we discussed on today's call, beyond those in the
>> document now.
>>
>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ie4ysgSH97tMciUvAYfk86US
>> OCoIdK6aMQ9QWS2GJik/edit?usp=sharing
>>
>> The document will become stable at 16:00 UTC tomorrow (Friday, October
>> 28), and will be sent to the CCWG staff in anticipation of next week's F2F.
>>
>> A copy is also attached for those who have difficulty accessing Google
>> Docs.
>>
>> Thank you for your comments.
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>> Greg
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Ws2-jurisdiction mailing listWs2-jurisdiction at icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20161101/fc52eaeb/attachment.html>