Caption Notes-Recordings-Transcript links for Jurisdiction Meeting #35 - 14 June 2017
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) [cid:image001.png@01D2E5D5.73E41D50] 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<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/66068505/Jurisdicton_0614IC...> * PDF<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/66068505/Jurisdiction_0614I...> 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)
Hello, kindly find inline: On 15 Jun 2017 6:46 PM, "MSSI Secretariat" <mssi-secretariat@icann.org> wrote: *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. SO: Based on the statement above it seem to me that this was decided by the CCWG plenary and not necessarily by the jurisdiction subgroup. I did not attend the call but I want to assume the appropriate consensus process was followed in the decision making process. Nevermind that participation in WS2 so far has somewhat reduced hence some level of diversity may be lacking (ofcourse this is probably nobody's fault) That said, as much as I personally don't see any significant reason for a change of jurisdiction at this time, I also believe that we should be open to formally log any issues/concerns that has been identified in our final report especially if the "only" solution to resolving such issue falls within the category of what we have barred ourselves from discussing. We should recognise that those issues/concerns are there and hopefully in future another group or generation can take it up and find a workable solution to them (perhaps the issue would have resolved itself by then or there will be more compelling reason to take nuclear route). Regards - *Action Items:* - (none) *Requests:* - (none) _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Seun, As noted in Thomas's statement, no issues are foreclosed and all are available for discussion. I would be surprised if there issues that can *only* be resolved or mitigated in such manner. This narrowing of the Subgroup's focus clarifies that where we are considering recommendations to resolve issues, we need to focus on workable resolutions that will gain consensus in the group. I hope that everyone will join in that effort, even those who wanted no options foreclosed. Greg On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 3:57 PM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> wrote:
Hello, kindly find inline:
On 15 Jun 2017 6:46 PM, "MSSI Secretariat" <mssi-secretariat@icann.org> wrote:
*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.
SO: Based on the statement above it seem to me that this was decided by the CCWG plenary and not necessarily by the jurisdiction subgroup. I did not attend the call but I want to assume the appropriate consensus process was followed in the decision making process. Nevermind that participation in WS2 so far has somewhat reduced hence some level of diversity may be lacking (ofcourse this is probably nobody's fault)
That said, as much as I personally don't see any significant reason for a change of jurisdiction at this time, I also believe that we should be open to formally log any issues/concerns that has been identified in our final report especially if the "only" solution to resolving such issue falls within the category of what we have barred ourselves from discussing.
We should recognise that those issues/concerns are there and hopefully in future another group or generation can take it up and find a workable solution to them (perhaps the issue would have resolved itself by then or there will be more compelling reason to take nuclear route).
Regards
-
*Action Items:*
- (none)
*Requests:*
- (none)
_______________________________________________ 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
participants (3)
-
Greg Shatan -
MSSI Secretariat -
Seun Ojedeji