[Ws2-jurisdiction] Jurisdiction Questionnaire: RESPONSE REQUESTED

Tue Jan 10 06:08:08 UTC 2017

The difference is that we are not now under NTIA oversight. We are the
captains of out destiny, as it were.

Doesn't examining US jurisdictional oversight include pros and cons?

Seriously? Allow? ICANN provides  and allows ample opportunity for "people
outside these hallowed circles" to say what they want. Participating here,
at meetings, online, etc cetera. There is so much opportunity for public
consultation that new participants find themselves at a loss when trying to
find a place for their comments. That this group wants specific answers  to
a question on a survey is hardly the insult to public
consultation/participation you claim it to be.

On Mon, Jan 9, 2017, 11:56 PM parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:

On Tuesday 10 January 2017 11:16 AM, John Laprise wrote:

Because if we are looking to improve the status quo, I'd like to see
examples and evidence of what we're seeking to avoid in seeking a different
jurisdiction and look at how said jurisdiction would address the cited
problem.

Exit from NTIA oversight was also an improvement over the status quo -- why
these criteria did not apply then ? The I* community asked for
globalisation of ICANN without seeing these examples and evidences,
following it up by the Netmundial conference. (Apart from the WSIS having
done so much earlier.) Even during the transition process, no one asked for
these evidences that justify change!

For many of us, examining the US jurisdictional oversight issue is simply
completing the task of ICANN's globalisation.

It's not obstruction. If the claim is for a "better" jurisdiction, I want
to know what, materially constitutes as better.

Sure, but can you all be so good as to allow people, outside these hallowed
circles, to tell what they tell in their own words, rather than 'say this
but not this, dont go here...' . That is an insult to public consultation,
much less participation.

parminder

On Mon, Jan 9, 2017, 11:35 PM parminder < <parminder at itforchange.net>
parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:

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
> 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>
ws2-jurisdiction-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of Paul Rosenzweig <
<paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com>
paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com>
*Date: *Monday, January 9, 2017 at 2:46 PM
*To: *'Phil Corwin' <psc at vlaw-dc.com>, "'Mueller, Milton L'" <
<milton at gatech.edu>milton at gatech.edu>
*Cc: *" <ws2-jurisdiction-bounces at icann.org>
ws2-jurisdiction-bounces at icann.org" <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>
paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com

O: +1 (202) 547-0660 <%28202%29%20547-0660>

M: +1 (202) 329-9650 <%28202%29%20329-9650>

VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 <%28202%29%20738-1739>

<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=>
<http://www.redbranchconsulting.com>www.redbranchconsulting.com[
redbranchconsulting.com]

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

*From:* Phil Corwin [mailto: <psc at vlaw-dc.com>psc at vlaw-dc.com]
*Sent:* Monday, January 9, 2017 3:16 PM
*To:* Paul Rosenzweig < <paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com>
paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com>; 'Mueller, Milton L' <
<milton at gatech.edu>milton at gatech.edu>
*Cc:* <ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org>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 <%28202%29%20559-8597>/Direct*

*202-559-8750 <%28202%29%20559-8750>/Fax*

*202-255-6172 <%28202%29%20255-6172>/Cell*

*Twitter: @VlawDC*

*"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey*

*From:* <ws2-jurisdiction-bounces at icann.org>
ws2-jurisdiction-bounces at icann.org [
mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces at icann.org
<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>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>
paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com

O: +1 (202) 547-0660 <%28202%29%20547-0660>

M: +1 (202) 329-9650 <%28202%29%20329-9650>

VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 <%28202%29%20738-1739>

<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=>
<http://www.redbranchconsulting.com>www.redbranchconsulting.com[
redbranchconsulting.com]

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

*From:* Mueller, Milton L [mailto:milton at gatech.edu <milton at gatech.edu>]
*Sent:* Monday, January 9, 2017 2:28 PM
*To:* Paul Rosenzweig < <paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com>
paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com>
*Cc:* <ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org>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 -
<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=>
www.avg.com[avg.com]
Version: 2016.0.7996 / Virus Database: 4749/13706 - Release Date: 01/04/17

_______________________________________________
Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list
Ws2-jurisdiction at 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

_______________________________________________
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/20170110/648a8e88/attachment-0001.html>