[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 10:52:28 UTC 2017
On Monday 02 January 2017 03:56 PM, Seun Ojedeji wrote:
> Hello Parminder,
>
> I thought I was here, or you don't think my view was important as an
> observer [1] ;-) Anyway if people feel asking for
> advantages/disadvantages is useful, no problem. I personally just
> don't see the essence of asking for advantages initially - we cannot
> exhaust the advantages and we should not do the analysis of the
> response based on the volume of advantages vs disadvantages - hearing
> the problems, determining their validity and discussing way forward
> would be preferred IMO.
Sean, I havent disregarded your views. They in fact clearly and fully
correspond to my views, which have been often and amply stated here,
which is to look at disadvantages of current jurisdiction, and address
them. This includes a full exercise of helping a big civil society group
anchor such an analysis in form of a statement. Why do you think I
would be a great fan of describing the current jurisdiction's
advantages? However, there is a long history to this debate on this
list, and many say, mostly those who are for the status quo, that we
cant only look at disadvantages and not mention the advantages, and
since long I have conceded, sure, no problem, go ahead and do it. This
is where I am coming from. What you say correspond to my known position,
and thus I found no reason to press it. My email's point was; I am happy
to have others add whatever they want to the question - advantages of
the current jurisdiction, disadvantages of possible alternatives,
whatever. I happy for it to be as complete an inquiry as possible, if it
satisfied other people , and we can actually move forward. While my view
of course is, and consistently has been, that we must focus on actual
problems with the current jurisdiction and explore solutions, which is
the way any rational exercise will proceed.
To further clarify: I wrote to Paul and Matthew because I opposed their
supposition that anyone here is actually against looking at advantages
of current jurisdiction. I am not. Although I agree with you that it is
unnecessary in this question since the Chairs have said that a this
stage we are looking only at issues/ problems, and not solutions (and
thus, possible problems with them). But to move things forward I am fine
to add that to the question.
I did not explicitly mention support to your proposal to remove
"advantages" from option 1 of question 4 - though I agree with it --
becuase I see that the other side wont agree to it, and having conceded
the point earlier, did not want to open up another front on this dispute
on mere questions that has stopped us from any progress for almost a
month now. As a matter of record though, let me state that, I support
Seun's proposal to remove "advantages" from option 1 of 4.
> Regards
> 1. I am sure you will not like your comment disregarded in such manner
> as well
Seun, it is not as if you have been "regarding" and responding to every
of my posting on the CCWG :), even when it clearly evoked Southern
participants. But as you see above, I havent disregarded your posting.
Hope for closer engagement from now on :)
parminder
> Sent from my LG G4
> Kindly excuse brevity and typos
>
> On 2 Jan 2017 5:09 a.m., "parminder" <parminder at itforchange.net
> <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>> 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 <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
>>> <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
>>> <mailto: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
>>> <mailto: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
>>> <https://e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3aaccountability%2dcross%2dcommunity@icann.org>"
>>> <accountability-cross-community at icann.org
>>> <https://e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3aaccountability%2dcross%2dcommunity@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
>>> <https://e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3aWs2%2djurisdiction@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
>>> <https://e-aj.my.com/compose?To=Ws2%2djurisdiction@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>
>> --
>> ------------
>> Matthew Shears
>> Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
>> Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)
>> + 44 771 2472987 <tel:07712%20472987>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20170102/57cfd3b2/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Ws2-jurisdiction
mailing list