[Ws2-jurisdiction] Additional Materials for our call

[Seun Ojedeji]

Hello Parminder, all

Thanks for bringing the attention of Greg to the suggestion. I want to
assume the document may have been drafted before my suggestion came in. :)

That said, perhaps it may be important to clarify that the proposed
construct also expect that the responder provide verifiable facts. It's
simply going to be in the line of "because of xyz experience or text from a
document, ICANN will not be able carryout abc of her work". I think such
construct will be useful in helping to improve ICANN processes et all.

Therefore I am again putting forward the suggestion so it can be noted
(ofcourse can be reworded to give same meaning):

"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."

Regards
PS: The suggestion to ask for disadvantages alone can be removed as an
alternative. I am convinced it's no more necessary based on Greg's comment
about the group's working method.
Sent from my LG G4
Kindly excuse brevity and typos

On 10 Jan 2017 9:25 a.m., "parminder" <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:

> Greg
>
> Why the alternative given by Seun, as amending David's, is not there?
>
> Quoting Seun's email , he proposed
>
> "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."
>
> *To make it clear, I do not agree with this*, but since David's option is
> listed, Seun's must also be, becuase his amendment is very substantive,
> covering future cases,
>
> Though I think there may be sentence construction issues with the above,
> which I may suggest reformulating as
> "Are you aware of any material, documented *facts* (instance(s)) where*by*
> ICANN has been or which are likely to cause it to be disabled from (unable
> to) pursue* or pursuing* 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."
>
> *(added in bold, removed in brackets)*
>
> I have tried to keep the intent of Seun's proposal, as I see it, whereby
> both past disabilities wrt disability to pursue operation of policies etc,
> and future ones, are equally covered.
>
> I repeat, I do not agree with the above, as it is still too constrictive
> to allow useful inputs. People are being told to become full-scale formal
> researchers, which is not how such consultations work.
>
> parminder
>
>
> On Tuesday 10 January 2017 01:36 PM, Greg Shatan wrote:
>
> Additional materials are attached.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/eba43325/attachment.html>