Dear Sam,

Thank you again for your good will and kind effort to find a solution for the matter but the solution is not postpose dealing with the same.

As I mentioned earlier. if the issue is not properly responded the entire WS2 would fail.

This is a fundamental ,crucial and core issue and MUST be responded I am aganist NO CHANGE

Regards

Kavouss

2016-12-24 21:22 GMT+01:00 Sam Lanfranco <sam@lanfranco.net>:

Colleagues,

This is a short attempt is my last effort to get to the essence of the jurisdiction issue, an issue that is both complex and contentious. There are two views at play here. I will try to capture them in simple terms, without repeating the arguments supporting either position.

One is that jurisdiction is such a hot button issue that, as Philip Corwin argues, raising it as a major issue in its own right would “…further inflame a debate that cannot end in consensus agreement, as there is a fundamental incompatibility between altering ICANN’s status as California non-profit and effectively exercising the empowered community accountability powers that accompanied the IANA transition and were designed to operate within that specific legal framework.” . The other view, stated by Pedro Ivo Ferraz da Silva, is that the topic of jurisdiction was postponed by the CCWG because “the majority of this group thought it was not appropriate to deal with it in the pre-transition period due to time constraints”, and I might add because it is both complex and contentious.

Had the issues not been complex and contentious, either (a) something like Philip Corwin’s push for “ICANN’s permanent status as a US-based non-profit corporation…enshrined in a Fundamental Bylaw prior to the completion of WS1” would be up for discussion, or (b) the NETmundial call for “…ICANN’s internationalization and not becoming an intergovernmental organization” would have built some options based on seeking answers to a list of relevant jurisdiction questions. At this point we would have some progress on what, in the longer term, is the way forward. None of that has happened.

As well, I agree with the view is that “Until this matter is resolved with finality it will remain a scab to be constantly picked at, always threatening to become a festering sore on the body politic of IG”. Philip Corwin and others worry about the downside risks to any rash attempt to recommend a change in ICANN’s organizational jurisdiction. Others see the act of not addressing it as a partisan effort to “sweep the issue under the rug” and maintain a self-interested status quo. In the absence of a proper discussion around this issue the “festering sore” will remain. Stakeholders will be embroiled in ill framed disputes that inflame positions, and do not lead to better insights on how ICANN’s residence and jurisdiction issues are addressed. Without dialogue even the status quo will become an increasingly untenable position.

My view is that current CCWG discussion should include discussion about where and how that jurisdiction discussion should occur. The jurisdiction issue is a challenge, an exciting opportunity for ICANN to pioneer new ground, and more broadly an opportunity to further refine global multistakeholder engagement in bottom-up policy making. In terms of ICANN’s decision making speed this will require a longer time frame than that for the current CCWG on Accountability, although advice on how to this discussion should be constituted is a legitimate agenda item for the current Accountability CCWG.

Sam Lanfranco  npoc/csih

_______________________________________________
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