[Ws2-jurisdiction] CCWG Plenary Topic: Gap Analysis

[Mathieu Weill]

Your memory is excellent Jorge,



I have checked my records and found this working documents. Some parts of 
the document were later integrated into the 2nd report late July.



Thanks for digging this out ! Certainly the closest we got to a “gap 
analysis”



Best

Mathieu







De : Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch [mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch]
Envoyé : mardi 20 septembre 2016 09:55
À : gregshatanipc at gmail.com; ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org
Cc : mathieu.weill at afnic.fr
Objet : AW: [Ws2-jurisdiction] CCWG Plenary Topic: Gap Analysis



Dear Greg



If I’m not mistaken some discussion on the „gap analysis“ took place in the 
CCWG under the leadership of Mathieu in July 2015 – perhaps he may point us 
to relevant documents where this was further elaborated…



Regards



Jorge



Von: ws2-jurisdiction-bounces at icann.org 
[mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces at icann.org] Im Auftrag von Greg Shatan
Gesendet: Dienstag, 20. September 2016 06:57
An: ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org
Betreff: [Ws2-jurisdiction] CCWG Plenary Topic: Gap Analysis



All,



As mentioned in my prior email, we discussed seeking clarification from the 
CCWG Plenary regarding the Annex 12 statement that the Jurisdiction work 
should include "confirming and assessing the gap analysis." The statement 
does not include any further identification of the gap analysis or its 
results.



To the best of our knowledge, there is no analysis done in WS1 that was 
called a "gap analysis" in so many words.  Our rough interpretation is that 
this refers to the (implicit?) determination that there were no significant 
gaps in the accountability proposals resulting from ICANN's current 
jurisdictional framework.  However, clarifying (or correcting) this would be 
helpful.  To bring this back to the CWG Plenary, I would propose the 
following question:



The scope of the Jurisdiction topic in Annex 12 includes "confirming and 
assessing the gap analysis."

1. Can the CCWG Plenary identify the "gap analysis" referred to?

2. If there was no formal gap analysis, is it correct to assume that this 
refers to a determination that there were no significant gaps in the WS1 
accountability proposal resulting from ICANN's current jurisdictional 
framework?



Greg

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ws2-jurisdiction/attachments/20160920/83fdb5ed/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: CCWG and jurisdiction V5.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 26914 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ws2-jurisdiction/attachments/20160920/83fdb5ed/CCWGandjurisdictionV5-0001.docx>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: CCWG and jurisdiction V5.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 455024 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ws2-jurisdiction/attachments/20160920/83fdb5ed/CCWGandjurisdictionV5-0001.pdf>