[Ws2-jurisdiction] Online meeting
parminder
parminder at itforchange.net
Mon Jan 2 09:03:00 UTC 2017
This is regarding the Jurisdiction sub group Meeting #15 (*5 January @
19:00 UTC*) .
The last meeting on 19th Dec was also at 1900 UTC. Did we not agree to
alternate between 1900 and 1300 UTC?
Chair, I request, accordingly, to change the time.
parminder
On Monday 02 January 2017 09:38 AM, parminder wrote:
>
> 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:
>>>
>>> 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>
>>> 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>
>>> 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
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20170102/3fd95797/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Ws2-jurisdiction
mailing list