[Ws2-jurisdiction] Online meeting

Mon Jan 2 09:35:36 UTC 2017

Dear Grec,
I have a medical engagement on  05 January at 19,00  UTC hours .
Our last meeting was 19,00 UTS ,if I remember correctly.
This time why not you coordinate to alternate to 05,00 OR 13,00 UTC .
As you know I am very much interested .Unless I am candidate to be
prevented to attend , pls changé the meeting time to any of the two period
.Regards
Kavouss

2017-01-02 10:03 GMT+01:00 parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>:

> 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
> <https://e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3aseun.ojedeji@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
> <https://e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3agregshatanipc@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> <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
> <https://e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3aws2%2djurisdiction@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> <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" <accountability-cross-
> community 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
>
>
> <https://e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3aaccountability%2dcross%2dcommunity@icann.org>
> <https://e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3aaccountability%2dcross%2dcommunity@icann.org>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list
> Ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org
> <https://e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3aWs2%2djurisdiction@icann.org>
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list
> Ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org
> <https://e-aj.my.com/compose?To=Ws2%2djurisdiction@icann.org>
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ws2-jurisdiction mailing listWs2-jurisdiction at icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
>
> <gregshatanipc at gmail.com>
>
>
> --
> ------------
> Matthew Shears
> Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
> Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)+ 44 771 2472987 <+44%207712%20472987>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ws2-jurisdiction mailing listWs2-jurisdiction at icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ws2-jurisdiction mailing listWs2-jurisdiction at icann.orghttps://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/20170102/698626d0/attachment-0001.html>