[Ws2-jurisdiction] Jurisdiction Questionnaire: RESPONSE REQUESTED

Tue Jan 10 06:23:18 UTC 2017

Hello Parminder,

Are you suggesting that we don't ask for experience at all? How then do we
validate a problem and fix it? The IANA Stewardship was an identified
issue(so to speak) and the fix was the transition to an MS community.
Besides it was a specific task assigned by the steward to ICANN.

That said, re-reading Greg's proposed text of question 4 and based on your
comment, I think the question may not cover instance where there is an
existing document/legal construct that could hinder ICANN from performing
it's role. So perhaps we can reword the first paragraph to the following:

"Are you aware of any material, documented instance(s) where ICANN has been
or will be 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."

Overall there has to be a proof that there is a problem before a fix can
happen in this particular scenario. This is where "if it ain't broke don't
fix it" really has to be upheld.

Regards
Sent from my LG G4
Kindly excuse brevity and typos

On 10 Jan 2017 6:35 a.m., "parminder" <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> on behalf of Paul Rosenzweig
> <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>
> *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
>
> 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>
>
> 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=0x9A830
> 097CA066684[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]
> *Sent:* Monday, January 9, 2017 3:16 PM
> *To:* Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com>;
> 'Mueller, Milton L' <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-bounc
> es 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
>
> 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>
>
> 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=0x9A830
> 097CA066684[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>
> *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
>
>

_______________________________________________
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/d2434de8/attachment-0001.html>