[Ws2-jurisdiction] Jurisdiction Questionnaire: RESPONSE REQUESTED

[Paul Rosenzweig]

I gather, however, that some disagree and say “all now or none ever.”  If that is my choice I choose none.  If the idea of separation gains any traction, I’d be open to consideration but I fear it would not bet any better definition later and we would just be kicking the can down the road.

 

Paul

 

Paul Rosenzweig

 <mailto:paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com> paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com

O: +1 (202) 547-0660

M: +1 (202) 329-9650

VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739

 <http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/> www.redbranchconsulting.com

My PGP Key:  <https://keys.mailvelope.com/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x9A830097CA066684> https://keys.mailvelope.com/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x9A830097CA066684

 

From: Mueller, Milton L [mailto:milton at gatech.edu] 
Sent: Monday, January 9, 2017 2:28 PM
To: Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com>
Cc: ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org
Subject: RE: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Jurisdiction Questionnaire: RESPONSE REQUESTED

 

Paul

 

Others in the group feel strongly that question 4 should go out.  Some feel so strongly that they are of the view that it is all or nothing.  While I don’t agree with them and while I certainly don’t agree with the idea that saying “all or nothing” is respectful of other people, I am not going to try any longer to change their minds.

 

MM: Those who suggest that we should not send out a fact-finding missive at all because of Q4 also seem to be taking an “all or nothing approach” are they not? 

The reasonable solution, as I have said before, is to separate Q4 from the others and work on it some more to make it take a form that is acceptable to a broader range of WG participants. 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ws2-jurisdiction/attachments/20170109/b53e1005/attachment.html>