Thomas But you should have consulted CCWG st least by sending message and asking their views and NOT ALL OF SUUDEN coming and announcing the decision of Co-Chairs. No such authority was entrusted to you. It was much beyond your authority. You need to formally explain to the f2f meeting on the over representation of your personal views which were not coordinated with CCWG. I am sure all those who wanted no change from the day one would support you even if they have not pushed you to Kavouss Sent from my iPhone
On 17 Jun 2017, at 03:55, Thomas Rickert <rickert@anwaelte.de> wrote:
Dear Seun, thanks for your note.
During the last subgroup’s call I have explained to the sub team that we would report to the plenary, so please rest assured that keeping the CCWG in the loop was always planned.
In a few days, the CCWG will convene for its meeting at ICANN59.
We will address this issue during that session.
Kind regards, Thomas
Am 17.06.2017 um 06:45 schrieb Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com>:
Dear Co-Chairs,
I was not in attendance at the last plenary in May (and perhaps a couple of previous ones) but do follow the list and have just also checked the list archive but can't seem to find any thread relating to consensus building of the CCWG which then resulted to the decision of the Co-Chairs that was presented at the jurisdiction subgroup's last meeting.
May I request clarification on how you arrived at that decision? Ofcourse I certainly may have missed something.
Regards
On 16 Jun 2017 7:33 PM, "Greg Shatan" <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote: Seun,
Thanks for your comments. With regard to your concerns about the co-chairs (all but #2), you should take those up with the co-chairs. It sounds like some things need to be clarified.
The significance of the comments from those opposed to the decision can be weighed by the Plenary. While the Subgroup's support was at a sufficient level to be called consensus, such support of the Subgroup for the Co-Chairs' decision was welcome, but not necessary. Finally , not to speak for the Co-Chairs, but since the motivating factor here was to narrow our options by excluding alternatives that would not get consensus support, checking numbers is relevant.
Best regards,
Greg
On Fri, Jun 16, 2017 at 2:39 AM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> wrote: Hello Greg,
Thanks for your clarification so based on your explanation:
1. The co-chairs of the CCWG presented a personal decision of theirs and not of the plenary? I had thought co-chairs are supposed to observe discussion within the CCWG plenary and make their decision based on that.
2. The subgroup then supported the decision of the co-chairs (hopefully by consensus?). May I know if the subgroup decision making is only limited to those who attend meeting calls? I think it's important to consider the significance of the comments raised by the few members you indicated opposed as you and I know that just checking numbers for/against in this case will not do necessary justice to the matter at hand.
3. Saying that this will now be decided by the plenary after the co-chairs of the plenary already made a declaration/decision about the subject matter sounds like a procedural flaw to me.
The plenary co-chairs have done extremely well in coordinating the CCWG since WS1 and I hope this will not be an exception. I will apply same comment to subgroup leads as well.
Regards PS: my participation here remains as an end user affiliated to atlarge and NOT as any other hat that I may wear.
On 16 Jun 2017 12:50 AM, "Greg Shatan" <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote: Seun,
Thank you for asking. Let me clarify for you and others where we are procedurally. Yes, issues relating to clarity on scope are ultimately to be determined by the CCWG plenary. As you note, Thomas was speaking for the co-Chairs, and as the co-chairs stated, after almost a year of deliberations in this group, they could not see the possibility of consensus on recommendations which included these elements. The decision presented by Thomas was a decision by the co-Chairs. It was good that bulk of the Subgroup supported the decision on the call, but it should not be viewed as a Subgroup action per se. As of the end of the call, the discussion and decision now goes to the Plenary. Unless the decision changes there, that ends the discussion within the CCWG.
Greg
On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 7:34 PM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> wrote: Hello Greg,
In the summary sent by staff the decision extract starts with the following:
"Thomas Rickert for the CCWG-Accountability Co-Chairs, We have concluded that......."
Please can you clarify if this decision was made by the subgroup or by the CCWG plenary as well? As I am somewhat unclear who is declaring/making decisions on things here.
If am right, the subgroup makes recommendations to the plenary who then decides, it also seem to me that issues relating to clarity on scope should be better determined by the CCWG plenary.
Regards
On 15 Jun 2017 10:27 PM, "Greg Shatan" <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote: Jurisdiction Subgroup Members,
As noted below, after two full meetings devoted to the topic, the Subgroup arrived at a decision (excerpted verbatim from the transcript in the email below). For convenience, here it is again:
We have concluded that the Jurisdiction sub-group will take California jurisdiction as a base line for all its recommendations, and that the sub-team not pursue recommendations to change ICANN's jurisdiction of incorporation, location of headquarters or seek immunity for ICANN. With this decision we are recognizing that there is no possibility that there would be consensus for an immunity based concept or a change of place of incorporation. As such I would establish in the minutes of this call that we focus on the solution that gets most traction. Recognizing that this does not eliminate, as I think Avri said during last week's call, that we can discuss all issues that might arise during the deliberations. But that we actually focus on the status quo being California law and place of incorporation. and work on solutions that are founded on this.
Opposition was noted from four participants on the call (including one who left before the end, but had made his position clear.
This decision will now be referred to the Plenary, consistent with CCWG procedures.
With this, I believe that it is imperative that we return to and focus on identifying potential issues, deciding whether these are in fact issues within our remit, discussing those issues and making recommendations for resolving those issues.
Greg
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: MSSI Secretariat <mssi-secretariat@icann.org> Date: Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 1:46 PM Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] Caption Notes-Recordings-Transcript links for Jurisdiction Meeting #35 - 14 June 2017 To: CCWG Accountability <accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Cc: "ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org" <ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org>
Hello all,
The caption notes, recordings and transcripts for CCWG Accountability WS2 Jurisdiction Subgroup Meeting #35– 14 June 2017 will be available here: https://community.icann.org/x/GSDwAw
A copy of the action items and raw caption notes may be found below.
With kind regards,
Brenda Brewer, Projects & Operations Assistant
Multistakeholder Strategy & Strategic Initiatives (MSSI)
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
Skype: brenda.brewer.icann
Phone: 1-310-745-1107
Raw Captioning Notes
Please note that these are the unofficial transcript. Official transcript will be posted 2-3 days after the call
Word Doc PDF
Decisions:
Thomas Rickert for the CCWG-Accountability Co-Chairs, We have concluded that the Jurisdiction sub-group will take Californian jurisdiction as a base line for all its recommendations, and that the sub-team not pursue recommendations to change ICANN's jurisdiction of incorporation, location of headquarters or seek immunity for ICANN. With this decision we are recognizing that there is no possibility that there would be consensus for an immunity based concept or a change of place of incorporation. As such I would establish in the minutes of this call that we focus on the solution that gets most traction. Recognizing that this does not eliminate, as I think Avri said during last week's call, that we can discuss all issues that might arise during the deliberations. But that we actually focus on the status quo being Californian law and place of incorporation. and work on solutions that are founded on this.
Action Items:
(none)
Requests:
(none)
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community