"Held a session on the Jurisdiction sub-group’s recent discussions regarding the possibility of
changing the location of ICANN’s headquarters or creating a blanket immunity for ICANN.
In this
session it was confirmed that it was unlikely there would be consensus in the CCWG for any
recommendation that involved changing ICANN’s headquarters’ location or jurisdiction of
incorporation or creating a blanket immunity for ICANN. As such, the sub-group’s work shall
focus on recommending accountability improvements that are issue-driven remedies which
build upon ICANN’s status as a non-for-profit organization headquartered in California."Is this now a CCWG decision, or still an interposition by its chairs?
If the former, is there a process for that which got followed at the f2f meeting? I ask because I really dont know much about the processes being followed here. My apologies for that. Other than the CCWG and sub groups chairs who appeared completely unflappable in face of numerous questions, doubts and criticisms raised by those present, and largely refused to engage with them, from my limited process knowledge, I am unable to see how it could be said that the CCWG approved this "decision". Just want to be sure.
Apart from the the process, I find problems with the substance of the "decision". There were certainly very significant push back on the "immunity" part of the "decision", in the sub-group discussions as well as at the f2f meeting, with whatever qualifications the term is included in the "decision". The meaning and manner of such possible qualifications and modulations of the "concept of immunity" themselves are an issue to be discussed and decided by the group.... By introducing some arbitrary, and certainly premature, terms in this regard, any possible discussion on the subject is greatly compromised. Some people will keep reading different meanings in this decision about what kinds of immunity based solutions can or cannot be discussed, which will ruin the possibility of a useful, open discussion on the subject.
In face of the considerable push back in the sub group, CCWG chair "went on the record" (his words) in the sub group elist to say that he did not meant to exclude discussions on "partial or relative" immunity. In the circumstances, I understand by this new term "blanket immunity" just such immunity that would disable ICANN from remaining a non-for-profit registered in California.
Parminder
On Tuesday 27 June 2017 05:28 PM, Bernard Turcotte wrote:
All,
Co-Chair statement following the 25 June Face to Face meeting attached.
Bernard TurcotteICANN Staff Support to the CCWG-Accountability-WS2
_______________________________________________ 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