[Ws2-jurisdiction] Additional Materials for our call

[vidushi at cis-india.org]

----- On Jan 10, 2017, at 6:53 PM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com> wrote: 

> 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" < [ mailto:seun.ojedeji at gmail.com |
> 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" < [ mailto:parminder at itforchange.net |
>> 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 list [ mailto:Ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org |
>>>> 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
>>> [ mailto:Ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org | 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
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ws2-jurisdiction/attachments/20170110/443fb48a/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Jurisdiction Meeting 16.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 55301 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ws2-jurisdiction/attachments/20170110/443fb48a/JurisdictionMeeting16-0001.docx>