[Ws2-jurisdiction] Jurisdiction Questionnaire: RESPONSE REQUESTED
parminder
parminder at itforchange.net
Tue Jan 10 05:35:01 UTC 2017
On Tuesday 10 January 2017 05:21 AM, Greg Shatan wrote:
> Seeing some support for David McAuley's suggestion for Question 4 and
> some support for Alternative 1, I wonder if a combination of the two
> might be able to gain consensus support. Below (and attached in
> redline) is my suggested combination:
>
> Are you aware of any material, documented instance(s) where ICANN has
> been unable to pursue the actual operation of its policies and
> accountability mechanisms because of ICANN’s jurisdiction? If so,
> please provide documentation, including specific examples and
> references to specific laws.
>
There has been no response to my query as to why such a condition of
listing documented instances where ICANN has been unable to pursue its
policies because of NTIA oversight was not applied before seeking and
finalising exit from NTIA oversight. Neither documented proof of
existing alternative accountability mechanism was sought.
Presenting these conditions now simply amounts to obstructing a proper
inquiry into all aspects of ICANN's jurisdiction, as was agreed.
I dont agree to sending out Q1-3 in absence of Q4 because that is making
a judgement on the mandate of this group, a judgement that I do not
agree with.
parminder
>
> Are you aware of and able to document the existence of an alternative
> jurisdiction where ICANN would not be so prevented from pursuing the
> actual operation of ICANN’s policies and accountability mechanisms? If
> so, please provide documentation, including specific examples,
> references to specific laws, case studies, other studies, and analysis.
>
> I look forward to discussion of this and the other alternatives
> regarding Question 4 on our call tomorrow, and before that, on this list.
>
> Greg
>
>
> On Mon, Jan 9, 2017 at 3:52 PM, MSSI Secretariat
> <mssi-secretariat at icann.org <mailto:mssi-secretariat at icann.org>> wrote:
>
> Hello all,
>
>
>
> In reply to Paul Rosenzweig, the Jurisdiction meeting on Tuesday,
> 10 January is at 13:00 UTC.
>
>
>
> With kind regards,
>
> /Brenda Brewer, Projects & Operations Assistant /
>
> Multistakeholder Strategy & Strategic Initiatives (MSSI)
>
> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
>
>
>
>
>
> *From: *<ws2-jurisdiction-bounces at icann.org
> <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces at icann.org>> on behalf of Paul
> Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com
> <mailto:paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com>>
> *Date: *Monday, January 9, 2017 at 2:46 PM
> *To: *'Phil Corwin' <psc at vlaw-dc.com <mailto:psc at vlaw-dc.com>>,
> "'Mueller, Milton L'" <milton at gatech.edu <mailto:milton at gatech.edu>>
> *Cc: *"ws2-jurisdiction-bounces at icann.org
> <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces at icann.org>"
> <ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org>>
> *Subject: *Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Jurisdiction Questionnaire:
> RESPONSE REQUESTED
>
>
>
> What time is the call tomorrow? I apologize, but I lost track of
> our scheduling decisions.
>
>
>
> Paul
>
>
>
> Paul Rosenzweig
>
> paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com
> <mailto:paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com>
>
> O: +1 (202) 547-0660 <tel:%28202%29%20547-0660>
>
> M: +1 (202) 329-9650 <tel:%28202%29%20329-9650>
>
> VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 <tel:%28202%29%20738-1739>
>
> www.redbranchconsulting.com[redbranchconsulting.com]
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.redbranchconsulting.com_&d=DgMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=kbiQDH54980u4nTPfwdloDLY6-6F24x0ArAvhdeDvvc&m=nfCiwapWoYHvCLBz3QwPV-Y_rEkBKbBcjkF01YjHIU4&s=k0gxVhVajSVr85ScjQlhuuWFLH86Ai4JS2TRqYqcYdE&e=>
>
> My PGP Key:
> https://keys.mailvelope.com/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x9A830097CA066684[keys.mailvelope.com]
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__keys.mailvelope.com_pks_lookup-3Fop-3Dget-26search-3D0x9A830097CA066684&d=DgMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=kbiQDH54980u4nTPfwdloDLY6-6F24x0ArAvhdeDvvc&m=nfCiwapWoYHvCLBz3QwPV-Y_rEkBKbBcjkF01YjHIU4&s=o6SpWL_y9zYaTmi-HIsDy5L4-EavY5iLy3Wj1r03U6M&e=>
>
>
>
> *From:*Phil Corwin [mailto:psc at vlaw-dc.com <mailto:psc at vlaw-dc.com>]
> *Sent:* Monday, January 9, 2017 3:16 PM
> *To:* Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com
> <mailto:paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com>>; 'Mueller,
> Milton L' <milton at gatech.edu <mailto:milton at gatech.edu>>
> *Cc:* ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org>
> *Subject:* RE: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Jurisdiction Questionnaire:
> RESPONSE REQUESTED
>
>
>
> Whatever the WG’s decision, I certainly hope we can decide this
> with finality on tomorrow’s call. Because right now we are like a
> car spinning its tires and just sinking deeper into the mud. We
> have already spent far too much time on this questionnaire matter.
>
>
>
> *Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal*
>
> *Virtualaw LLC*
>
> *1155 F Street, NW*
>
> *Suite 1050*
>
> *Washington, DC 20004*
>
> *202-559-8597 <tel:%28202%29%20559-8597>/Direct*
>
> *202-559-8750 <tel:%28202%29%20559-8750>/Fax*
>
> *202-255-6172 <tel:%28202%29%20255-6172>/Cell*
>
> * *
>
> *Twitter: @VlawDC*
>
>
>
> */"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey/*
>
>
>
> *From:*ws2-jurisdiction-bounces at icann.org
> <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces at icann.org>
> [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces at icann.org
> <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces at icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Paul
> Rosenzweig
> *Sent:* Monday, January 09, 2017 3:02 PM
> *To:* 'Mueller, Milton L'
> *Cc:* ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Jurisdiction Questionnaire:
> RESPONSE REQUESTED
>
>
>
> 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
>
> paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com
> <mailto:paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com>
>
> O: +1 (202) 547-0660 <tel:%28202%29%20547-0660>
>
> M: +1 (202) 329-9650 <tel:%28202%29%20329-9650>
>
> VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 <tel:%28202%29%20738-1739>
>
> www.redbranchconsulting.com[redbranchconsulting.com]
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.redbranchconsulting.com_&d=DgMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=kbiQDH54980u4nTPfwdloDLY6-6F24x0ArAvhdeDvvc&m=nfCiwapWoYHvCLBz3QwPV-Y_rEkBKbBcjkF01YjHIU4&s=k0gxVhVajSVr85ScjQlhuuWFLH86Ai4JS2TRqYqcYdE&e=>
>
> My PGP Key:
> https://keys.mailvelope.com/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x9A830097CA066684[keys.mailvelope.com]
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__keys.mailvelope.com_pks_lookup-3Fop-3Dget-26search-3D0x9A830097CA066684&d=DgMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=kbiQDH54980u4nTPfwdloDLY6-6F24x0ArAvhdeDvvc&m=nfCiwapWoYHvCLBz3QwPV-Y_rEkBKbBcjkF01YjHIU4&s=o6SpWL_y9zYaTmi-HIsDy5L4-EavY5iLy3Wj1r03U6M&e=>
>
>
>
> *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
> <mailto:paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com>>
> *Cc:* ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org <mailto: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.
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com[avg.com]
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.avg.com_email-2Dsignature&d=DgMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=kbiQDH54980u4nTPfwdloDLY6-6F24x0ArAvhdeDvvc&m=nfCiwapWoYHvCLBz3QwPV-Y_rEkBKbBcjkF01YjHIU4&s=hkHuO6pAbFTyCqdbOGTfbuIMRHWwpEYn1sKtA6h-Tpg&e=>
> Version: 2016.0.7996 / Virus Database: 4749/13706 - Release Date:
> 01/04/17
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list
> Ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org <mailto:Ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org>
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
> <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/20170110/87216b3b/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Ws2-jurisdiction
mailing list