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

[Kavouss Arasteh]

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/1ie4ysgSH97tMciUvAYfk86USOCoId
> K6aMQ9QWS2GJik/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/20161030/23f1c3a8/attachment.html>