[Ws2-jurisdiction] Online meeting

Tue Jan 3 14:02:48 UTC 2017

Dear All,
I also prefer 13,00 UTC on 05 Jan.
If you maintain 10 Jan, I prefer 19,00 UTC .
If you move 10 Jan to 09 JAN ,I could also make it at 19,00 UTC
Regards
Kavouss

2017-01-03 12:59 GMT+01:00 Tijani BEN JEMAA <tijani.benjemaa at topnet.tn>:

> I prefer 13:00 UTC for the call of 5 January.
> I don’t care if the call of 10 January is held on 9 January.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> -----------------
> *Tijani BEN JEMAA*
> Executive Director
> Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations (*FMAI*)
> Phone: +216 98 330 114 <+216%2098%20330%20114>
>             +216 52 385 114 <+216%2052%20385%20114>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> -----------------
>
>
>
> Le 2 janv. 2017 à 22:40, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com> a écrit :
>
> 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
>>>
>>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20170103/5bd60aff/attachment-0001.html>