[Ws2-jurisdiction] Our work so far, and a way forward

[Arasteh]

Grec
Thanks
It seems reasonable if we do not any think from the table and if important points are not pushed to the end where there would be no time to discuss them
By the way all 168 hours are not for jurisdiction as people have to perform other tasks inside or outside ICANN
Regards
Kavouss 

Sent from my iPhone

> On 10 Oct 2016, at 06:58, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> All,
> 
> In order to move forward, and based on the discussions so far, I suggest the following approach.
> 
> First, we should continue the current approach of defining and refining the various layers of jurisdiction, and I encourage you all to go to the Google doc and add your views.  https://docs.google.com/document/d/1oE9xDIAJhr4Nx7vNO_mWotSXuUtTgJMRs6U92yTgOH4/edit?usp=sharing
> 
> Second, we won't investigate changing ICANN's headquarters or incorporation jurisdiction at this time.  However, it's not off the table -- if we identify an issue during our work and we can't find a less drastic way to deal with that issue, we will revisit this point at that time.  We can then revisit the concerns that people have raised regarding such a recommendation in the context of a particular issue.
> 
> Third, we should put aside "confirming and assessing the gap analysis" for the moment.  There is still a diversity of views on what this "gap analysis" was and what we need to do to confirm and assess it.  As a result, our time has been spent discussing the parameters of the assignment, rather than working on the assignment itself.  I believe that we will be better able to define the scope of this item and move to substance, if we spend some time looking at the substance of an issue that is clearly within our scope.
> 
> After we finish clarifying the multiple layers of jurisdiction, we should move to an issue that is clearly within our scope -- something we have to do.  That way we can move to the substance of the issue and not spend a lot of time on "scope."
> 
> An issue that is clearly within our scope relates to ICANN's jurisdictions for settlement of disputes (i.e., venue and choice of law).  There should not be any question that this is within the scope of our group (Annex 12 refers to this as the "focus" for our group).  Based on Annex 12, this involves looking at: "The influence that ICANN’s existing jurisdiction" relating to resolution of disputes "may have on the actual operation of policies and accountability mechanisms." I suggest that we examine this "influence" and determine what this "influence" is.  Our work looking at venue and choice of law in the "multiple layers of jurisdiction" will help us in this task.
> 
> A note on process -- it is very important that we focus on creating written material. In our calls, we should be working on and working from these written materials. Ultimately, these writings will feed into our deliverable.  Put another way, you should focus your contributions on adding to the drafts (currently, the "layers of jurisdiction" document), rather than on relying solely on oral interventions in our calls -- after all we have 168 hours in a week, and only 1 hour for our call.
> 
> I look forward to our upcoming call.
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> 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/20161010/541084c0/attachment.html>