[Ws2-jurisdiction] REMINDER: Focus, Working Method and Revisions to Proposed Questions: RESPONSE REQUESTED [was: Jurisdiction Proposed Questions and Poll Results]
parminder
parminder at itforchange.net
Mon Jan 2 04:08:47 UTC 2017
Paul and Matthew
No one here has objected to asking about problems (or benefits) of any
alternative jurisdictional option. Please add them where you want to in
the questions. In fact, the question 1 already says advantages and
disadvantages of ICANN jurisdiction, which terms always mean 'with
respect to possible alternatives', but I will be happy to explicitly add
to it advantages and disadvantages of any alternative jurisdictional
options. But please let us move on.
parminder
On Sunday 01 January 2017 11:32 PM, matthew shears wrote:
>
> + 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20170102/6df90081/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Ws2-jurisdiction
mailing list