[Ws2-jurisdiction] Online meeting

Mon Jan 2 19:40:02 UTC 2017

A rotation needs to be pragmatic, based on slot availability, vacation
weeks, etc.  As such, some repeating is likely to occur over time.

The next *5* calls were scheduled, alternating between 13:00 and 19:00, as
follows:

January 5: 19:00 (announcement sent 16 Dec)
January 10: 13:00 (sent 16 Dec)
January 20: 19:00 (sent 19 Dec)
January 24: 13:00 (sent 16 Dec)
January 30: 19:00 (not yet sent)

There are no alternative slots available in the week of the January 20
meeting, so we will either meet then or not at all.  We could re-schedule
Thursday's call to 13:00 UTC, but then we will have 2 13:00 slots in a row
(Jan 5 & 10).  We could move the 10 Jan call to 19:00 on Jan 9 (Jan 10 not
available), but then we will 2 19:00 slots in a row (Jan 9 & 20).  I had
taken this into account in scheduling January's meetings, and the schedule
we have seemed the most reasonable, especially since concerns about having
2 slots in a row at the same time seemed less significant when those calls
were two weeks apart (as they would be if no meetings were skipped).

Of course, no one wants to exclude any participant.  However, it may be
that other participants duly took into account the calendar items
distributed on 16 December and have made plans accordingly.  We need to
respect their schedules as well, particularly since they did take the
subgroup's schedule into account.  Before taking any action, I need to ask:

*Is there any participant who could NOT attend a 13:00 call on 5 January
who would be able to attend the currently scheduled 19:00 call?*

*Since repeating a time slot is inevitable, should we move the 10 January
slot to 9 January at 19:00 if we move the 5 January call to 13:00, as a
"trade-off"?*

Please respond as quickly as possible.  Thank you.

Greg

On Mon, Jan 2, 2017 at 4:35 AM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>
wrote:

> 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>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: "
>> <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>
>> 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
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>>
>>
>> --
>> ------------
>> 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/a7df427d/attachment-0001.html>