[Ws2-jurisdiction] Staying Focused in the Jurisdiction Subgroup

[Greg Shatan]

All,

Based on several questions and other comments from participants, I thought
it would be helpful to reiterate where we stand on the Questionnaire,
including both the formulation and inclusion of questions.

I collected the suggested alternatives and other comments from the subgroup
into a document, which I sent to subgroup on December 30.  I'm now putting
a revised version of that document in Google drive, with a third column for
subgroup comments (and I've highlighted the additions or deletions (*^*) in
red).  I'm also sending this new version attached to this email.

Here is the Google doc link: https://docs.google.com/
document/d/1XHNwFUr2wA-w65ynd6YjuDyuBjx0V9PAxt-81z3WTEA/edit?usp=sharing
I'll add the existing comments to the Google doc.  If you have made
comments already, please feel free to add them yourself.

To try and focus the discussion, I provided a "strawman" with one possible
set of answers for dealing 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.

One clarification regarding Question 3:  This question is asking the
respondent (X) to refer us to an existing description prepared by a third
party (Y), describing Y's relevant experience with "ICANN's jurisdiction."
 The question asks X to provide copies of, or links to, Y's document
describing Y's experience -- nothing more.  It does not ask X to say
anything about Y's experience.  We are only interested in what Y has to say
(in Y's description).

Phil, your proposal on Question 4 is Alternative 1.

Finally, this does not presume that Question 4 will (or won't) be part of
the questionnaire.  If we can find a version of Question 4 that gets broad
support (with little or no objection) in the subgroup, then Question 4 will
be included.  The current situation is essentially one of "Divergence" (or
"No Consensus") where no outcome has broad support, and we are relatively
evenly divided (keeping in mind the Charter's admonition that "polls are
not votes").  It would be preferable if we could move from this position to
a position where some version of Question 4 gets broad support (or where
dropping or postponing Question 4 gets broad support); that would allow the
subgroup to come to a decision.

I know that there are some in the group who would like a simple majority
(based on the poll results) to control the decision, or who would like to
operate on a basis other than one where each participant has an equal say.
However, the consensus-driven model is the cornerstone of working group
methodology. Under that model "no consensus" would not support the Working
Group taking any action.  Since this is a subgroup and not a Working Group,
the situation is somewhat different, in that we are not intended to be the
final decision-maker.  So, when we bring the Questionnaire back to the
Plenary, we could advise them (as we did the last time) of the status of
Question 4 and have the plenary decide whether or not Question 4 should be
sent out.  Of course, the Plenary would need to be brought up to speed on
the situation and on the various positions taken by participants in the
subgroup, so that the Plenary could make an informed decision.

While this is possible, I don't believe it's preferable.  What's preferable
is to see if we can all (or almost all) get behind a particular decision
within the subgroup.  To that end, please look at Question 4 and consider
the alternatives.

Keep in mind that, whatever the result on Question 4, it does not define
the scope of the subgroup or the limits of inquiry within the Subgroup.  It
only relates to what information we will solicit from non-participants at
this time.  This should not be seen as emblematic of a decision on larger
issues.  This is only about asking a question, it is not about how we treat
certain possible solutions to problems that are identified in the group or
through the Questionnaire.  Treating this relatively minor issue in this
manner makes it much harder for participants to have the necessary
flexibility to compromise and reach consensus.  Freud said "Sometimes a
cigar is only a cigar."  To paraphrase, "Sometimes a question is only a
question."  Let's all look at the question of Question 4 only for what it
is.

Greg
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ws2-jurisdiction/attachments/20170103/a0ef0c68/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Proposed  Jurisdiction Subgroup Questions and Alternatives (1).pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 505930 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ws2-jurisdiction/attachments/20170103/a0ef0c68/ProposedJurisdictionSubgroupQuestionsandAlternatives1-0001.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Proposed  Jurisdiction Subgroup Questions and Alternatives (1).docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 24396 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ws2-jurisdiction/attachments/20170103/a0ef0c68/ProposedJurisdictionSubgroupQuestionsandAlternatives1-0001.docx>