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

[parminder]

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/1ie4ysgSH97tMciUvAYfk86USOCoIdK6aMQ9QWS2GJik/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 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/20161029/7c3d5dd8/attachment.html>