New subject: Request for Clarification (Was Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Fwd: Caption Notes-Recordings-Transcript links for Jurisdiction Meeting #35 - 14 June 2017)

June 16, 2017

      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 <(310)%20745-1107>
*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)
_______________________________________________
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

Request for Clarification (Was Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Fwd: Caption Notes-Recordings-Transcript links for Jurisdiction Meeting #35 - 14 June 2017)

Seun Ojedeji

Thomas Rickert

Kavouss Arasteh

Thomas Rickert

Arasteh

Paul Rosenzweig

tags

participants (5)