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

[Pedro Ivo Ferraz da Silva]

Dear Greg,

Thank you for the proposal.

As I said on our last call, I believe it is rather premature to start a "gap hunting" exercise before we have a common understanding of what a gap is and how we should look for them in the WS1 report. The mere fact that some colleagues in this subgroup foresee that no gaps will be identified - simply because the contracted law firms haven't explicitly identified any or because in a way or another all accountability requirements found an implementation mechanism under California non-profit law - shows that we still lack a more detailed discussion of what we are really looking for here.

To my understanding, this shouldn't be a binary exercise where our conclusion is simply "there are gaps"/"there are no gaps". It should rather be a honest and impartial evaluation as to what extent a requirement has been implemented and whether there are options to implement them in a more efficient or straightforward manner. I would be happy to discuss this more extensively with our subgroup colleagues so that we can reach a common starting ground - and a commonly agreed method - for the exercise to come.

Kind regards,

Pedro


---------------------------------------------
De: ws2-jurisdiction-bounces at icann.org [ws2-jurisdiction-bounces at icann.org] em nome de Greg Shatan [gregshatanipc at gmail.com]
Enviado: terça-feira, 27 de setembro de 2016 2:37
Para: ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org
Assunto: [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/20160929/52ea6c53/attachment.html>