[Ws2-jurisdiction] Jurisdiction Questionnaire: RESPONSE REQUESTED

Tue Jan 10 06:27:10 UTC 2017

Let's not rewrite history here.

First, it was always the intention that ICANN would eventually be removed
from NTIA oversight through expiration of the IANA agreement.

Second, the removal of ICANN from NTIA oversight was not initiated by the
multistakeholder community, it was initiated by the NTIA.

Third, the plan for removal of ICANN from NTIA oversight did not originally
include the CCWG-Accountability.  The CCWG was only chartered after serious
concerns were raised by the community, including "instances" where the
community's ability to exercise oversight of ICANN were found wanting.

Fourth, both the CWG-Stewardship and the CCWG-Accountability went through
extensive review of current processes to determine where they needed to be
replaced or enhanced (hence, the title of this CCWG).

Greg

On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 1:08 AM, John Laprise <jlaprise at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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@
> 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>, "'Mueller, Milton L'" <
> <milton at gatech.edu>milton at gatech.edu>
> *Cc: *" <ws2-jurisdiction-bounces at icann.org>ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@
> 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=>
> <http://www.redbranchconsulting.com>www.redbranchconsulting.com[re
> dbranchconsulting.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@
> 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@
> 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[re
> dbranchconsulting.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
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20170110/1964db15/attachment-0001.html>