[Ws2-jurisdiction] Additional Materials for our call

[Seun Ojedeji]

Hello Greg,

Staff is still trying to get me connected via dialout (don't have the juice
for AC at my location). Just incase, kindly note my proposal for the
wording of the first paragraph of question 4 and the suggestion to have the
2 paragraphs as 4a and 4b for clarity.

Regards

Sent from my LG G4
Kindly excuse brevity and typos

On 10 Jan 2017 12:47 p.m., "Seun Ojedeji" <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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/20170110/343644a6/attachment.html>