[Ws2-jurisdiction] AOC Termination Letter Emphasizes Commitment to US Jurisdiction -- RE: Jurisdiction Questionnaire: RESPONSE REQUESTED
parminder
parminder at itforchange.net
Tue Jan 10 06:40:44 UTC 2017
Greg, pl see below.
On Tuesday 10 January 2017 11:42 AM, Greg Shatan wrote:
> 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.
I just responded to John on this point.
>
> 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.
In the last call, a participant spoke about fear about "orchestrated
campaign", capture and manipulation, of a public consultation process.
(Kavouss objected to this.). I have read people hee say, we are going
into uncharted territories, digging a big hole for ourselves, etc etc in
sending out Q 4 ... Is this not being "afraid" of a simple informational
process?. So, indeed, I am putting no words in any one's mouth, this is
what has been amply spoken over here.
Best regards, parminder
>
> Best regards,
>
> Greg
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 12:50 AM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net
> <mailto: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
>> <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 <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:*Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com
>> <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <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://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 <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
>> <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://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]
>> *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 - 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 <mailto:Ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org>
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
>> <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 list
>> Ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org <mailto:Ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org>
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
>> <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
> <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ws2-jurisdiction/attachments/20170110/1fecd952/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Ws2-jurisdiction
mailing list