[Ws2-jurisdiction] The Gap Analysis: Question, Method and Objective -- Proposal for Comment

[Paul Rosenzweig]

This is a good plan going forward.  I have to say, however, that it seems a bit like spinning wheels to me.  We vetted the WS1 plan with two sets of lawyers.  To think that there are gaps that haven’t been identified and that we will discover them is … not terribly realistic.  Still, if the group wants to go through the exercise, by all means …

 

Paul

 

Paul Rosenzweig

 <mailto:paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com> paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com

O: +1 (202) 547-0660

M: +1 (202) 329-9650

VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739

 <http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/> www.redbranchconsulting.com

My PGP Key:  <http://redbranchconsulting.com/who-we-are/public-pgp-key/> http://redbranchconsulting.com/who-we-are/public-pgp-key/ 

 

From: ws2-jurisdiction-bounces at icann.org [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of McAuley, David
Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2016 10:35 AM
To: ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org
Subject: Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] The Gap Analysis: Question, Method and Objective -- Proposal for Comment

 

Thanks Greg,

 

Because Paragraph 30 of Annex 12 says that “Confirming and assessing the gap analysis ….” will occur in the context of focusing on the settlement of dispute jurisdiction issues I think your approach would be fine if all three numbered items in your note are construed within that Paragraph 30 focus – in other words, that our analysis be only insofar as the questions relate to the settlement of dispute jurisdiction issues. 

 

David

 

David McAuley

International Policy Manager

Verisign Inc.

703-948-4154

 

From: ws2-jurisdiction-bounces at icann.org <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces at icann.org>  [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Greg Shatan
Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2016 1:37 AM
To: ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org> 
Subject: [Ws2-jurisdiction] The Gap Analysis: Question, Method and Objective -- Proposal for Comment

 

All,

 

Based on the call today, I'm presenting the following as the proposed path forward on the Gap Analysis:

 

1. The Question.  Whether each of the accountability measures proposed in Work Stream 1 can be implemented under ICANN's current jurisdictional framework without any gaps.  (Implementation "without any gaps" means the ability to apply an accountability measure to, and ultimately enforce that measure against, ICANN.)

 

2.  The Objective.  The first objective is to determine whether there are any "gaps," i.e., whether any of the WS1 accountability measures cannot be fully implemented under ICANN's current jurisdictional framework.  After possible gaps are identified, the subgroup will examine each possible gap to determine if it is in fact a gap.  A list of identified gaps will be prepared.  (After the gap analysis is completed, the subgroup will then explore possible ways to "close the gap" for each applicable accountability measure, i.e., to implement the measure effectively.)

 

3. The Method.  The Final Proposal of WS1 will be posted as a Google Doc.  Subgroup members are asked to assign themselves one chapter of the Proposal to review for "gaps."  Notes on potential "gaps" can be made directly on the Google Doc proposal as comments.  A separate sign-up sheet will be posted, also as a Google Doc.  Subgroup members that cannot access Google Drive can put their chosen "assignments" into an email, and can also provide their analysis via email as well.  Subgroup rapporteurs and staff will make the necessary notations.

 

Comments are requested and appreciated. However, in order to keep up the momentum, the Final Proposal and sign-up sheet will be posted on Tuesday, September 27.  Our question, objective and method can be further refined even as we move forward.

 

I look forward to your comments and to seeing the assignments and analyses in the coming days and weeks.

 

Best regards,

 

Greg

 

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ws2-jurisdiction/attachments/20160927/fe1bf52c/attachment-0001.html>