[Ws2-jurisdiction] AOC Termination Letter Emphasizes Commitment to US Jurisdiction -- RE: Jurisdiction Questionnaire: RESPONSE REQUESTED

Tue Jan 10 06:12:30 UTC 2017

I don't think this an "attempt to capture decision making" at all.

"The opportunity for all interested parties to have a voice in decision
making" is the opportunity to participate in the CCWG and this subgroup
(and, generically, in Working Groups), and also to provide comments during
Public Comment periods that are opened after reports and proposals are put
out by Working Groups for public comment.

There's no expectation that a questionnaire like this will be used in a
Working Group.  What we have proposed to do here is actually quite uncommon
-- not a typical feature of the multistakeholder model as operationalized
within ICANN.  A mid-stream questionnaire such as the one we are discussing
is not often conducted by a Working Group, based on my experience.  When
they are conducted, they are typically seeking facts not known to the
Working Group (e.g., the accountability provisions of SO/ACs) and most
often distributed to SO/ACs.  This is an extra process that has been
proposed, and it entirely within our discretion to send it out or not.

Can you point to any statements made by participants in this group where
they say they are "afraid" of anything?  IF not, then there's no basis for
saying so.  We should avoid putting words in other people's mouths, and
instead seek to understand their points of view.

Best regards,

Greg

On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 12:50 AM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>
wrote:

> NTIA's letter says
>
> “The successful completion of the IANA stewardship transition proves that
> the multistakeholder model can work. One of its strengths is that it *provides
> opportunities for all interested parties to have a voice in decision making*,
> not just those most directly involved or impacted by ICANN.” (Emphasis
> added)
>
> Are we here living up to that ideal?
>
> Much less give the outsiders a role in decision making, we are afraid to
> even receive information from them -- afraid of what the 'outsiders' may
> say, and what that may then lead to. This is not acceptable. This is an
> attempt to capture decision making.
>
> parminder
>
>
> On Tuesday 10 January 2017 05:38 AM, Phil Corwin wrote:
>
> Of significant relevance to this subgroup and our ongoing discussion, I
> note that a letter formally terminating the Affirmation of Commitments
> between ICANN and the United States has been posted at
> https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/
> strickling-to-crocker-06jan17-en.pdf
>
>
>
> From the first page of the letter signed by ICANN Board Chairman Steve
> Crocker on January 3, 2017:
>
>
>
> *ICANN’s commitment to remain* a not-for-profit corporation, *headquartered
> in the United States of America* with offices around the world is
> embedded in ICANN’s Articles of Incorporation, which requires community
> agreement to modify, and in the Bylaws, which  *specify that ICANN’s
> California office is its principal place of business*. (Emphasis added)
>
>
>
>
>
> *Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal*
>
> *Virtualaw LLC*
>
> *1155 F Street, NW*
>
> *Suite 1050*
>
> *Washington, DC 20004*
>
> *202-559-8597 <(202)%20559-8597>/Direct*
>
> *202-559-8750 <(202)%20559-8750>/Fax*
>
> *202-255-6172 <(202)%20255-6172>/Cell*
>
>
>
> *Twitter: @VlawDC*
>
>
>
> *"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey*
>
>
>
> *From:* Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com
> <gregshatanipc at gmail.com>]
> *Sent:* Monday, January 09, 2017 6:52 PM
> *To:* MSSI Secretariat
> *Cc:* Paul Rosenzweig; Phil Corwin; Mueller, Milton L;
> ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org
> *Subject:* Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Jurisdiction Questionnaire: RESPONSE
> REQUESTED
>
>
>
> 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.
>
> 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@
> icann.org> on behalf of Paul Rosenzweig <
> <paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com>paul.rosenzweig@
> redbranchconsulting.com>
> *Date: *Monday, January 9, 2017 at 2:46 PM
> *To: *'Phil Corwin' < <psc at vlaw-dc.com>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 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@
> 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=>
> www.redbranchconsulting.com[redbranchconsulting.com]
>
> 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>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
> *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 [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
> *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@
> 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=>
> www.redbranchconsulting.com[redbranchconsulting.com]
>
> 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 <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
> *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
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com/email-signature>
> Version: 2016.0.7996 / Virus Database: 4749/13706 - Release Date: 01/04/17
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/be48a8f6/attachment-0001.html>