[Ws2-jurisdiction] REMINDER: Focus, Working Method and Revisions to Proposed Questions: RESPONSE REQUESTED [was: Jurisdiction Proposed Questions and Poll Results]
matthew shears
mshears at cdt.org
Sun Jan 1 18:02:13 UTC 2017
+ 1 Paul
On 31/12/2016 18:20, Paul Rosenzweig wrote:
>
> Actually, this is a good example of why I don't think this question is
> helpful. Not because I object to the solution space (as Avri says
> some may) but because this question is not designed to get us to the
> solution space that might exist. Asking only about problems or issues
> with respect to the jurisdiction of incorporation ignores the question
> of benefits. asking about problems only is like asking me what I
> dislike about my wife, and not taking into account all the many myriad
> things I like about her. :-)
>
> And, as I've said before, the question as formulated also ignores the
> issue of whether any other Jurisidction might be an improvement or
> not. It is easy to discount the value of my own wife for a
> hypothetical beauty -- but in the real world, the choices are not
> hypothetical. Unless we ask about benefits that have arisen from the
> current jursidiction; and also experiences with other potential
> venues, this question is just a way of collecting complaints about
> American juridiction.
>
> So, while I completely understand why Seun would make this suggestion
> and while, from one perspective, it is a sensible one, it is just a
> good example of why this question is so fraught.
>
> Happy new year all
> Paul
>
> --
> Paul Rosenzweig
> Sent from myMail app for Android
>
> Friday, 30 December 2016, 00:20PM -05:00 from Greg Shatan
> gregshatanipc at gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>:
>
> I am forwarding the following message from Seun Ojedeji to the
> Jurisdiction list, as he currently has Observer status and cannot
> post.
>
> Greg
>
> On Fri, Dec 30, 2016 at 2:37 AM, Seun Ojedeji
> <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com
> <//e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3aseun.ojedeji at gmail.com>>
> wrote:
>
> The suggested way forward seem fine but I would suggest
> modifying alternative 1 of question 4 by asking for just the
> "disadvantages" as I don't think there is need to ask for
> advantages since the goal of the question is to identify
> issues (okay problems - just playing around with words).
>
> Regards
> PS: Can't remember if I have posting rights. Otherwise, kindly
> help forward to list.
>
> Sent from my LG G4
> Kindly excuse brevity and typos
>
> On 30 Dec 2016 8:27 a.m., "Greg Shatan"
> <gregshatanipc at gmail.com
> <//e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3agregshatanipc at gmail.com>>
> wrote:
>
> REMINDER to READ this email and RESPOND, at least with
> regard to the questionnaire (see attachment). I've
> slightly revised the email for clarity.
>
> To try and focus this discussion, I'll provide a strawman
> for how to deal with the alternatives:
>
> Preamble -- Use Alternative 1.
> Question 1 -- Use Alternative 1.
> Question 2 -- No change
> Question 3 -- No change.
> Question 4 -- Use Alternative 1.
>
> Thank you for your responses.
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: *Greg Shatan* <gregshatanipc at gmail.com
> <//e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3agregshatanipc at gmail.com>>
> Date: Tue, Dec 27, 2016 at 3:28 PM
> Subject: Focus, Working Method and Revisions to Proposed
> Questions: RESPONSE REQUESTED [was: Jurisdiction Proposed
> Questions and Poll Results]
> To: ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org
> <//e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3aws2%2djurisdiction at icann.org>
>
>
> All,
>
> I'm sending this to the Jurisdiction subgroup list, since
> this was initially send to a discussion thread on
> jurisdiction taking place on the CCWG list.
>
> *Please respond here, rather than there. Thank you.*
>
> Greg
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: *Greg Shatan* <gregshatanipc at gmail.com
> <//e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3agregshatanipc at gmail.com>>
> Date: Tue, Dec 27, 2016 at 2:56 AM
> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] RES: Jurisdiction Proposed
> Questions and Poll Results
> To: "accountability-cross-community at icann.org
> <//e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3aaccountability%2dcross%2dcommunity at icann.org>"
> <accountability-cross-community at icann.org
> <//e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3aaccountability%2dcross%2dcommunity at icann.org>>
>
>
> All:
>
> Two quick but important points:
>
> 1. We have strayed from the basic topic in front of us,
> which is to decide on the formulation of the questions to
> be sent out. *
>
> I have gone through the emails and meeting notes and
> pulled the alternative formulations and revisions in to a
> single document, attached to this email. *
>
> With regard to question 4, I believe that the best way to
> move forward is to see if one of the alternatives gets
> stronger support within the CCWG. If we can get to a
> point where there is broad support for the question
> without significant opposition that may resolve issues
> relating to whether and when this question will be sent out.
>
> 2. Our overall agreed-upon working method is to first
> identify, discuss and arrive at a list of
> problems
> , and then move on to identifying, discussing and arriving
> at a list of potential remedies for each
> problem
> on our list. We are still working on
> problems
> . For a remedy to be up for discussion when we move to
> discussing remedies, that remedy needs to provide a
> solution to a
> problem
> . We can't discuss a potential remedy without having a
> problem
> it is intended to solve. If there is a potential "remedy"
> but it does not solve any of our
> problems
> , we won't discuss it.
>
> We've already put aside one potential "remedy" until we
> see whether we identify any
> problems
> it would solve -- the "remedy" of changing ICANN's
> jurisdiction of incorporation or headquarters location.
> "Immunity" is another potential remedy that we need to
> deal with the same way. Skipping forward to discussions
> of remedies is only slowing down our discussion of
> problems
> . I strongly suggest we refocus on
> problems
> , so that we can get to the discussion of remedies. Once
> we've agreed on a list of
> problems
> , a discussion of remedies will be more productive.
>
> Our working method of dealing with
> problems
> first and then remedies may also help us find agreement
> on a way to deal with question 4. Questions 1-3 clearly
> deal with issues. Perhaps a version of question 4 that is
> limited to asking for
> problems
> will get broader support ("Alternative 1" on the
> attachment may fit this description.)
>
> Greg
>
> _The following responses were received on the
> Accountability list_:
>
> *Parminder*:
> Greg/ All
>
> I think the Alternative 1, which you take as likely
> candidate for broader support, is fine. I list this
> formulation below:
>
> What are the advantages or disadvantages, if any, relating
> to ICANN's jurisdiction*, particularly with regard to the
> actual operation of ICANN’s policies and accountability
> mechanisms? Please support your response with appropriate
> examples, references to specific laws, case studies, other
> studies, and analysis. In particular, please indicate if
> there are current or past instances that highlight such
> advantages or problems.
>
> (* For these questions, “ICANN’s jurisdiction” refers to
> (a) ICANN being subject to U.S. and California law as a
> result of its incorporation and location in California,
> (b) ICANN being subject to the laws of any other country
> as a result of its location within or contacts with that
> country, or (c) any “choice of law” or venue provisions in
> agreements with ICANN.)
>
> ENDS
>
> Lets move on with it. We are spending too much time on
> framing a question.
>
> *Kavouss Arasteh: *
> Grec,
> Tks again,
> As I said I believe ,it is counter productive to discuss
> many alternative,
> I could agree with formulation of Parminder
> Regards
> Kavouss
>
> *Sam Lanfranco:*
> Greg,
>
> Thank you for presenting alternatives for reaching
> agreement on a/ Roadmap for Moving Forward to identify
> operational issues embedded in the overall “jurisdiction”
> issue/. It is important to recognize that what is being
> proposed is the choice of roadmap for moving forward.
> Where this takes us will flow from the assembly of
> evidence, the application of analysis, and the resulting
> array of possible options for addressing jurisdiction base
> operational issues.
>
> Sam Lanfranco*
> *
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list
> Ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org
> <//e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3aWs2%2djurisdiction at icann.org>
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list
> Ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org </compose?To=Ws2%2djurisdiction at icann.org>
> 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
--
------------
Matthew Shears
Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)
+ 44 771 2472987
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ws2-jurisdiction/attachments/20170101/cec2637a/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Ws2-jurisdiction
mailing list