[Ws2-jurisdiction] Jurisdiction Subgroup: The Path Forward
parminder
parminder at itforchange.net
Sat Aug 12 08:23:16 UTC 2017
On Saturday 12 August 2017 01:24 PM, farzaneh badii wrote:
> Here is the sheet with the documented issues:
> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1zAMj3Oz8TEqbjauOyqt09Ef-1ada9TrC7i60Mk-7al4/edit#gid=0
No, this is the new issues doc, prepared apparently by the Chair through
an unclear process. We are looking for the old issues doc, which was a
collective effort.
>
> It took me 10 seconds to find it.
>
> Here is the page where all the docs are
> displayed: https://community.icann.org/display/WEIA/Jurisdiction
Useful. That doc is at
file:///home/param/Downloads/InfluenceofExistingJurisdictionsforDisputesonPolicyandAccountability%20(1).pdf
>
> There is no need to contact the chair to find documents.
Apart from finding the right doc, there was also a question, which
remains unanswered. Why and how was the collaborative document that we
were working on containing issues of interest to the group abandoned,
and a new one of unclear provenance issued? Who made this new document,
following what process?
> You can contact ICANN staff for updated materials if you cannot find
> them on the WS2 page which I pasted above.
>
> I look forward to more substantive discussions on actual issues.
Sure, you want substantive discussions - these were the jurisdiction
issues that I had posted a year ago on the linked collaborative doc --
somehow any substantive discussion refuses to take place on them. Can
you/ others persuade me that there issues are fake, non issues,
unimportant etc. I have given many arguments and facts over the year
attesting to the importance of each of these, but happy to discuss again.
a. A US court may find ICANN's actions, involving actual
operation if its policies – like delegation of a gTLD, and/ or
acceptance of certain terms of registry operation, to be in
derogation of US law and instruct it to change its actions.
b. Emergency, including war related, powers of the US state –
existing, or that may be legislated in the future, like for
instance that involves country's critical infrastructure – may
get invoked with respect to ICANN's policies and functions in a
manner that are detrimental to some other country (or countries).
c. An US executive agency like OFAC may prohibit or limit
engagement of ICANN with entities in specific countries.
d. FCC which has regulatory jurisdiction over US's communication
infrastructure may in future find some ICANN functions and/ or
policies to be such that it would like to apply its regulatory
powers over them in what it thinks is the interest of the US public.
e. US customs, or such other enforcement agency may want to
force ICANN to seize a private gTLD of a business that is
located outside US which these agencies find as contravening US
law, like its intellectual property laws.
f. A sector regulator in the US, say in the area of health/
pharma, transportation, hotels, etc, may find issues with the
registry agreement that ICANN allows to a registry that takes up
key gTLD denoting these sectors, like .pharma, .car, .hotel and
lays exclusion-inclusion and other principles for the gTLD, and
it may force ICANN to either rescind or change the agreement,
and conditions under it.
(ends)
parminder
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Farzaneh
>
> On Sat, Aug 12, 2017 at 3:20 AM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net
> <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>> wrote:
>
>
> 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 <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 <mailto:Ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org>
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
> <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ws2-jurisdiction/attachments/20170812/0b31bd7c/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Ws2-jurisdiction
mailing list