[Ws2-jurisdiction] REMINDER: Focus, Working Method and Revisions to Proposed Questions: RESPONSE REQUESTED [was: Jurisdiction Proposed Questions and Poll Results]

Tue Jan 3 06:18:18 UTC 2017

Parminder,

As far as I can tell, the text you are asking about is not taken verbatim
from any text, but is instead a paraphrase.  I can see your point with
regard to adding something like "impact ICANN's accountability and the
actual operation of ICANN's policies."  (I would refer to "accountability"
and not merely to "accountability mechanisms," which is too narrow.)

What do other people think about amending the second paragraph of the
Preamble so it reads:

As directed by Bylaw Article 27, Section 27.1(b)(vi) and to the extent set
forth in the CCWG-Accountability Final Report, the Jurisdiction subgroup is
addressing jurisdiction-related questions, including how choice of
jurisdiction and applicable laws for dispute settlement impact ICANN's
accountability and the actual operation of ICANN's policies.

I look forward to other thoughts.

Greg

On Fri, Dec 30, 2016 at 2:56 AM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>
wrote:

> Greg
>
> I prepfer a shorter preamble as in Alternative 1, but before that, I would
> like to ask where does this wording come from
>
> "... the Jurisdiction subgroup is addressing jurisdiction-related
> questions, including how choice of jurisdiction and applicable laws for
> dispute settlement impact ICANN's accountability.
>
> Is it ad verbatim from an authoritative text or a kind of paraphrasing the
> mandate... I would especially want to know why this part ends with
> "..impact ICANN's accountability" and not with "impact actual operation of
> policies and accountability mechanisms".... In most text on this group's
> mandate I see both "actual operation of policies" and "accountability
> mechanism" stated together. Why would we now limit this process to looking
> at the 'Impact on ICANN's accountability" alone. As you would have seen,
> most of the discussion here pertained to impact of jurisdiction on "actual
> operation of policies". We cannot leave that out.
> Thanks, parminder
>
>
> On Friday 30 December 2016 12:57 PM, Greg Shatan 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
>
>
> 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" <
> 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 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/20170103/aa64689c/attachment-0001.html>