[Ws2-jurisdiction] Jurisdiction Questionnaire: RESPONSE REQUESTED
parminder
parminder at itforchange.net
Tue Jan 10 06:36:10 UTC 2017
On Tuesday 10 January 2017 11:38 AM, John Laprise wrote:
> The difference is that we are not now under NTIA oversight. We are the
> captains of out destiny, as it were.
I dont see the difference vis a vis the issue I posed. A change being
advised with or without clearly documented prior instances of "problems
with", and of possible replacements that already exist and are
demonstrably working.
>
> Doesn't examining US jurisdictional oversight include pros and cons?
>
Yes, it absolutely does. That is why I have always supported seeking
both advantages and disadvantages, of US jurisdictional oversight, as
well as of any proposed alternatives.
> 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.
>
That is the belief that ICANN community wishes to live in, but it is not
structurally true. There are innumerable studies that will show that
nominally open is not the same as substantive full participativeness.
You must really think that since there are just a very few asking for a
complete examination of the jurisdiction question, that number actually
represent how many want a shift from single country's jurisdictional
oversight? I have repeatedly pointed to the statement issued by scores
of organisations in this regard as just one instance of the sentiment
outside. Why are all those people not on this WG and attending the call,
maybe if you think enough about it you can guess. Simple formal openness
simply allows people with most resources - material, of time, as well as
cultural, to dominate the processes. You all know this quite well, I
dont have to write a paper here on formal openness versus substantive
participativeness. There is huge literature out there on participatory
processes.
parminder
> 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
> <mailto: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 <mailto: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
>>> <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
>>>
>>> <mailto:paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com>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>
>>>
>>> <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
>>> <http://www.redbranchconsulting.com>[redbranchconsulting.com
>>> <http://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
>>> <http://keys.mailvelope.com>]
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *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] *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
>>>
>>> <mailto:paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com>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>
>>>
>>> <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
>>> <http://www.redbranchconsulting.com>[redbranchconsulting.com
>>> <http://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
>>> <http://keys.mailvelope.com>]
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *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 -
>>> <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
>>> <http://www.avg.com>[avg.com <http://avg.com>]
>>> 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
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list
>>> Ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org <mailto:Ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org>
>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list
>> Ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org <mailto: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/20170110/686bfe64/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Ws2-jurisdiction
mailing list