[Ws2-jurisdiction] Jurisdiction Subgroup: The Path Forward

[parminder]

On Saturday 12 August 2017 11:37 AM, Seun Ojedeji wrote:
> Hello Greg,
>
> If I recall correctly there was a call to log issues twice now. Can
> you provide the URL where the issues are documented for people to pick
> from OR are you suggesting to hit another reset and start logging
> issues again?
>
> Regards
> PS: I hope I will get a response this time as I don't get response
> from you including when I even write you privately to remind you of my
> question.

To add to this, I asked for the original issues doc twice, and quite
pointedly the second time in a separate email, to which Jorge responded
also asking for it, and reminding that he too had asked for it earlier
once. 

This is the most extra-ordinary chair-ship of a working group that I
have ever witnessed! Why dont we just get told what report we have to
sign off on and close the matters.

parminder



> Sent from my mobile
> Kindly excuse brevity and typos
>
> On Aug 12, 2017 12:13 AM, "Greg Shatan" <gregshatanipc at gmail.com
> <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>     Jurisdiction Subgroup Members,
>
>
>     As explained by Staff at our last meeting on 9 August, we have
>     until *11 October* to submit a draft set of recommendations to the
>     Plenary for consideration as a first reading if any such
>     recommendations are to be accepted by the Plenary, published for
>     Public Consultation and included in the Final WS2 Report.
>
>
>     In other words, we have about *8 weeks* to develop a draft set of
>     recommendations and come to consensus on these.
>
>
>     Obviously, given this time-frame, we have to accept that we will
>     not be able to address all issues. In fact, the only realistic
>     approach, if we want to deliver any recommendations, is to pick a
>     handful of issues (2 to 4) on which we can all agree and for which
>     we believe we can propose recommendations that will achieve consensus.
>
>
>     I remain optimistic that we can do this if we can agree, meaning
>     everyone will have to compromise, to select this limited number of
>     issues over the next very few weeks and work diligently at
>     meetings and on the list to develop recommendations for these.
>
>
>     To reach this objective I would propose the following approach: 
>
>
>       * *Each participant should pick _one_ issue which they believe
>         is in scope for us and post that issue to the list prior to
>         our meeting of 23 August. More specifically:*
>           o *Issues should be very specific -- avoid open-ended,
>             abstract or omnibus issues*
>           o *Issue description should be succinct -- 12 standard lines
>             maximum*
>           o *Proposed solutions – if you have a possible solution or
>             recommendation which should be considered, please include
>             it (again, being succinct).*
>           o *Put your issue in a new email (not a reply), with the
>             subject ISSUE: [name of issue]*
>           o *The sooner, the better*
>
>     I look forward to discussing this proposal at our next meeting
>     of *16 August* and I would encourage participants to comment on
>     this proposal in response to this email prior to that meeting.
>
>
>     Greg
>
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list
>     Ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org <mailto:Ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org>
>     https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
>     <https://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/20170812/fe17fe94/attachment-0001.html>