January 2017 - Ws2-jurisdiction

Farzaneh's Question
by Greg Shatan Jan. 20, 2017

Jan. 20, 2017

I wanted to acknowledge receipt of the emails about Farzaneh's question: "Farzaneh Badii: (07:28) If you get a response about ICANN jurisdiction that does not directly relate to the questions but it is a problem that ICANN jurisdiction raises, is the group going to discard it?or are we gonna discuss it within the mandate of the group…" It is certainly a question that deserves a response; indeed, it deserves a well-considered response. It is also a question that raises several other questions, which also deserve responses. The Co-Chairs have also noted the question, and I expect that a coordinated response will be more useful to the group. We will get back to the group as soon as possible, though it may not be possible to do so in time for today's CCWG-Plenary call. Best regards, Greg On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 5:12 PM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Dear All, As you recall, I did ask Greg to provide a formal reply to > Farzaneh Question which deserved to be replied. > I hope Grec , in his presentation would refer to the matter an reply, if > his response would not be convincing I will raise the matter and request > the CO-CHAIRS to formally respond in a satisfactory manner. > Regards > Kavouss > > >

4 7

Final Questionnaire
by Greg Shatan Jan. 20, 2017

Jan. 20, 2017

All, I'm recirculating the final questionnaire so you will have it available during our upcoming call, if need be. Greg

1 0

Agenda for Jurisdiction Subgroup Meeting #17, 20 January 2017, 19:00 UTC
by Greg Shatan Jan. 20, 2017

Jan. 20, 2017

All: Here is the agenda and documents for the upcoming subgroup meeting at 19:00 UTC on 20 January 2017. The agenda has links to the Google Doc and to the page of ICANN's website where its prior and current litigations are listed. The current state of the Google Doc is also attached in Word and PDF for those who may not be able to access the Google Doc, or simply prefer a different format. Greg

3 2

Jurisdiction Questionnaire: Next Steps
by Greg Shatan Jan. 20, 2017

Jan. 20, 2017

All, As you probably know by now, the Questionnaire was approved without objection by the CCWG Plenary. A copy of the final version is attached. We now need to work on the next steps of publishing and announcing the Questionnaire. The time period the questionnaire will be open is under discussion in a different thread in the CCWG-Accountability mailing list. I urge you to contribute to that discussion. The method of publication of the Questionnaire needs to be finalized, as does the method (or methods) of submission of responses. Method: The Questionnaire could be published on a webpage of the ICANN site in text and submissions could be made by email (with the response either in email text or in attachments). Alternatively, the Questionnaire could be published as a survey, using www.surveymonkey.com or Google Forms or some other application. Survey/form inputs can help the process of aggregating the answers (e.g., Google Forms puts the answers on a spreadsheet). However, since the answers will be free text fields and links, and could include documentary attachments, a survey form may not be ideal. If we publish the Questionnaire on the ICANN website, the next question is where and how will it be published? 1. One possibility is the ICANN Public Comment page. The Public Comment page found at https://www.icann.org/public-comments describes Public Comments as follows: Public Comment is a vital element in ICANN's decision-making process whereby the community is given an opportunity to comment upon proposals initiated by a working group or staff department. This is not a Public Comment, since we are not asking for comment on a proposal. It might be misleading to announce the questionnaire on the Public Comment page and to publish it on a page formatted like a Public Comment and under the public comment taxonomy. The Public Comment pages contain a lot of additional explanatory text that is not appropriate here. 2. Another possibility is to announce the questionnaire on the IANA Stewardship & Accountability home page at https://www.icann.org/stewardship-accountability. This page is in the home page menu on https://www.icann.org/ (as is the Public Comment page). The questionnaire can then be published under the stewardship-accountability taxonomy, and simply present the Questionnaire without other text. There may be other possibilities. Regardless, the Questionnaire can be publicized through the usual ICANN methods (e.g., News and Announcements on home page and News page ( https://www.icann.org/news) ICANN Daily Digest, annouincements sent to SOAC contacts, etc.) Please reply with any comments you may have. Thanks! Greg

8 7

Advice from Winston Churchill and Joe Biden
by Greg Shatan Jan. 20, 2017

Jan. 20, 2017

I came across two pieces of advice which I pass on for your edification and amusement. The first is a World War II memo from Winston Churchill on Brevity. A copy is below and attached. The second is an anecdote told by Joe Biden that just appeared in the New York Times, which I've excerpted below. The article is at https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/17/magazine/joe-biden-i-wish-to-hell-id-jus… "Biden referred to a well-worn story about how, as a freshman senator, he saw Jesse Helms, the archconservative North Carolina Republican, ripping into a piece of disabilities legislation. Biden was furious about it and began attacking Helms to Mike Mansfield, the Democratic Senate majority leader. Puffing on his pipe, Mansfield asked Biden if he knew that Helms and his wife had adopted a disabled 9-year-old boy no one else would take. “*Question a man’s judgment, not his motives*,” Mansfield instructed. Biden, who was invited by Helms decades later to give his eulogy, is convinced that absorbing Mansfield’s advice is what allowed him to work with Senate Republicans during the Obama years, to negotiate the approval of the New Start nuclear-arms-reduction treaty, the end of “don’t ask, don’t tell” and the expansion of the earned-income tax credit, among other accomplishments. His approach to Trump, he said, wouldn’t be fundamentally different. “It falls in that category,” Biden told me. “It’s one thing to say: ‘I think the proposal on the following is a serious mistake. I think it’s gonna do the following damage.’ It’s another thing to say, ‘The guy’s a f___ing idiot, and he is an egomaniac who’s a whatever.’ ” Greg

2 1

Was that progress?
by Seun Ojedeji Jan. 11, 2017

Jan. 11, 2017

Hello, I just went through the notes which ofcourse will not contain details of what happened but gives an idea of how things transpired in the meeting. I have to say I was quite amazed at the level of "seeming" gang-up happening in the chat. Even though I remain one of the people who believe that there is no (can be no) reason that would be strong enough to validate change of ICANN jurisdiction in near future, I support asking question that identifies problems based on facts and I also don't see any issue with asking factual possibilities as it's something that can be easily proved wrong if the test on the facts don't checkout. I was surprised and "somewhat" disappointed to observe the level of sharp opposition on just questions on the chat. I have to note that there may still be need to work on how to better determine consensus in a diverse MS community like ours were each individual have varying access to resources as I think something feels broken. Anyway, I like to pick a question posed by farzeneh below. I don't know if it was answered. I hope the response is the latter as described in her question. "Farzaneh Badii: (07:28) If you get a response about ICANN jurisdiction that does not directly relate to the questions but it is a problem that ICANN jurisdiction raises, is the group going to discard it?or are we gonna discuss it within the mandate of the group…" While it seem progress was achieved in sending questions 1 to 4, all I will say is that I pray wisdom for the rapporteur as he leads this diverse group. Regards Sent from my LG G4 Kindly excuse brevity and typos

3 2

Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Epistemological basis of sub-group's working - and my objection to the so called consensus
by Seun Ojedeji Jan. 11, 2017

Jan. 11, 2017

I will not dwell on this particular event, but as we continue in this process I will encourage the rapporteur (who belongs to everyone and no one) to always recognise that the group isn't balanced in all ramifications hence question about "who" determines consensus needs to handled carefully. Where consensus are practiced in the RIR and IETF world even a single person could raise a point of substance that would affect the consensus check. Overall everyone irrespective of race and origin needs to be heard and the substance of their point should be addressed as much as possible - everyone should feel welcomed and heard in this community! Regards Sent from my LG G4 Kindly excuse brevity and typos On 11 Jan 2017 12:25 a.m., "Greg Shatan" <gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com> wrote: As long as this is "for the record," I'd like the record to be correct. Parminder is referring to the initial poll where we were gauging support for 3 different alternatives (and ultimately a fourth), not to the final consensus call. (I believe the results were actually 13-3...) Notably, all the other alternatives had more (or much more) non-support than they did support. The actual consensus call on the final formulation had only a single objection. Greg On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 6:18 PM, Mueller, Milton L <milton(a)gatech.edu> wrote: > Actually you are misrepresenting the situation, Parminder. > > > > At least two of the “no” votes to which you refer were not votes against > proceeding with the version of Q4 we ended up adopting, they were > expressing preferences for small alterations in wording. > > > > > > > > *From:* ws2-jurisdiction-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounc > es(a)icann.org] *On Behalf Of *parminder > *Sent:* Tuesday, January 10, 2017 1:52 PM > *To:* ws2-jurisdiction(a)icann.org > *Subject:* Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Epistemological basis of sub-group's > working - and my objection to the so called consensus > > > > I would also like it to be on record that the so called consensus was > decided on basis of 11 to 3 votes, which were neatly divided along the > lines of developed countries based persons and developing country based > ones. All those who voted "yes" to the final formulation were from > developed countries, overwhelmingly US based (which has current > jurisdiction on ICANN), and all those from developing countries voted > "no". There were only three participants from developing countries, and all > voted "no". I must however state that many from developed countries did not > vote either way. > > I am all for friendship and camaraderie, but there is a limit to playing > down such significant facts and differences, especially in relation to such > an important geopolitical issue as the jurisdictional oversight over ICANN. > This particular fact of how voting was split cannot be ignored. > > parminder > > > > On Tuesday 10 January 2017 11:59 PM, parminder wrote: > > Dear Co-Chairs/ All > > I understand that the Chairs will right now be busy drafting a report to > submit for the CCWG meeting tomorrow indicating consensus on the > questionnaire as seems to have been agreed in today's call. Since I made a > formal objection to the process, I will like to clarify the basis of my > objection, putting it on record. > > My objection mainly arises from the fact that that the jurisdiction > sub-group seems to be deciding a new, innovative, and completely unjust, > rule for its working. It apparently has decided that in taking public/ > community input into its work, *it will accept only such inputs that are > fully and exclusively based on actual occurrences/ instances **that can > be proven to have happened in the past*. I expect that, in the typical > creeping acquisition way, this new rule would then also be applied to the > discussions, and to making recommendations, by the group itself. > > This is a unique and significant epistemological stance. Importantly, such > a stance was not applied to the work of work-stream I of CCWG, for coming > up with a new accountability mechanism. It was never insisted that only > such "facts" as arise from actual occurrences in the past can be the basis > of suggesting any institutional change. > > Even in other groups of work-stream 2, like those dealing with > transparency, human rights framework, etc, it is not a condition that any > institutional change has to be based on facts arising from actual > "verifiable occurrences" in the past, and the implications arising thereof. > I have some passing acquaintance about the stage of outputs from the > subgroups on transparency and human rights, and I know for a fact that *there > has never been a condition that any institutional innovation can only arise > from "verifiable occurrences" in the past, absent which no change can be > suggested or made*. > > In the circumstance, it is question of fairness and natural justice, to > ask why a jurisdiction related institutional change can only be based on > facts that directly arise from clearly verifiable past occurrences. What is > so special about jurisdiction related institutional changes - which is the > mandate of a separate sub group, and about which issue many actors were > insistent since the very start that it should be given full consideration? > > I am happy to shown otherwise, but right now I can only think that this is > being done with the intention to fend off the discussion going in > directions that certain actors fear would not serve their interests. If one > fears losing a case on cannons of reason, justice and preponderance of > public opinion, the best thing to do - if one is powerful enough - is to > simply change the rules of how a decision process will be conducted, and > what are the legitimate or illegitimate inputs into it. That is exactly > what has been done in this case. It strains the credibility of ICANN's so > called open process; whose first rule seems to be, throw so much resources > at any important issue as to overwhelm any discussion about it, and then, > if "problems" persist, simply change the rules and frame new ones, as has > been done in this case. I cannot accept that an ICANN WG cannot trust the > community/ public to give their free and unconstrained views on a key issue > central to its mandate. And that it should resort to making novel, and > absurd rules, about what can and what cannot be said by the public/ > community as inputs into its work. This especially when in very similar > parallel processes there exists no such rule. This new rule changes the > very basis of the working of this sub group, and almost completely > hamstrings it. > > parminder > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list > > Ws2-jurisdiction(a)icann.org > > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction > > > > _______________________________________________ > Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list > Ws2-jurisdiction(a)icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction > > _______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction(a)icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction

1 0

Notes, recordings and transcript for WS2 Jurisdiction Subgroup Meeting # 16 | 10 January 2017
by MSSI Secretariat Jan. 10, 2017

Jan. 10, 2017

Hello all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for CCWG Accountability WS2 Jurisdiction Subgroup Meeting #16 – 10 January 2017 will be available here: https://community.icann.org/x/yqXDAw A copy of the notes may be found below. Thank you. With kind regards, Brenda Brewer, Projects & Operations Assistant Multistakeholder Strategy & Strategic Initiatives (MSSI) Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Notes (including relevant parts of chat): 1. Welcome Greg Shatan: (opening with 30 participants). No updates to SOIs. No audio only. 2. Proposed Questionnaire: a. Options for Question 4 Greg Shatan: (proposals for Question 4 document - staff to prep DM proposal also). Kavouss Arasteh: which version are we discussing? It is important for all of us to agree on something. DM text needs to include "mission". Parminder: I prefer we begin with the formulations already discussed in the last call and not new David's text. Parminder: I dont agree with current David's text Milton: I think we should move ahead with Qs 1-3 and continue working on Q4 Parminder: but can do with Seun's changes, with changing "instances" to "facts" in Seun's modified text David McAuley: re my suggestion - I could support the GS reformulation of this. Still disagree we deal with JOI. Milton: it's obvious that we will not reach agreement on any version of Q4 in this call Brenda Brewer: Documents can be found on Jurisdiction Wiki page here; https://community.icann.org/x/yqXDAw John Laprise: I support the McAuley Formulation Vidushi Marda: Would it be possible to begin by discussing the alts discussed in the last call first? Steve DelBianco: I can support either David's Q4 or the adjusted version circulated by Greg Mathieu Weill: Obviously there is traction for this compromise, I suggest to call for any objection ? Kavouss Arasteh: Mathieu " 1 ,taking also my suggestion to bring back Mission in to the text Parminder: We should focus on the previously presented 7 versions and could support any of these except 7. Steve DelBianco: Have not supported Q4 but in the spirit of compromise could agree to the reformulated DM question. If we cannot reach consensus on Q4 we should proceed to the plenary with the first 3 questions and advise we will continue to work on Q4. Jonathan Zuck: Agree with SDB and like the simplicity of this version. Parminder: Please put Seun’s modification on the screen, which had good support on the elist Jonathan Zuck: Of course, we can always come up with interpretive scenarios in which laws might cause problems in the future but 19 years seems like a prettty good sample in which to find "instances" David McAuley (RySG): Steve makes a good point about consensus Kavouss Arasteh: not constructive to work on 7 versions. Could work with DM version with MISSION included. Milton: If McCauley's version of Q4 gains something close to consensus, I would strongly prefer that we stick to David's first, simpler version Parminder: Please put at least Seun's and my changes to david's text as alternatie text here. Milton: "Mission" is broader and easier to understand than "actual operations....bla bla" David McAuley (RySG): +1 Milton, I could support Greg's reformulation but prefer original reference to Mission - that is what matters Philip Corwin: Agree with Jonathan Z's observation. David McAuley (RySG): by adding Mission and leaving other reformulated wording we risk confusion again Milton: simpler is better Milton: agree with David on that Kavouss Arasteh: why David Parminder: this is the wording Parminder: "Are you aware of any material, documented facts whereby ICANN has been or which are likely to cause it to be disabled from pursue or pursuing the actual operation of its policies and accountability mechanisms because of ICANN’s jurisdiction? If so, please provide documentation, including specific examples and references to specific laws." David McAuley (RySG): adding Mission and leaving other wording implies the two sets of wordings are different - Steve DelBianco: @Milton -- "mission" is a concept that few understand, since it is expressed in the bylaws as a multi-part statement. Philip Corwin: "Mission" alone is better choice, as it is pursued via operation of policies and accountability mechanisms and therefore includes them by implication. Kavouss Arasteh: re-insert MISSION in square brakets and send to the CCWG-Accountability plenary and they cand decide. John Laprise: I also agree that simpler (and symmetric) is better. Steve DelBianco: Our scope is actually narrower than pursuit of mission. It is about accountability mechanisms Milton: Corwin is correct Jonathan Zuck: we should always be trying to avoid another argument in the future. If "mission" is vague then we get less useful answers and spend our time discussion what the mission is again Milton: Steve - understand your point but we have built ICANN's accountability mechanisms around Cal jurisdiction, ergo we are asking whether anything related to ICANN's mission is sacrificed by that John Laprise: @Kavous "Mission" is a problem because it requires that survey takers actually know the mission verbatim from memory when they answer the survey rather than what they think the mission is. That's why mission is problematic. Parminder: strong objection to not showing my or Sheun's modifications to DM's text. Kavouss Arasteh: Pls put " Mission" added into SQUARE bRACKET and send it to CCWG pLENARY Jonathan Zuck: @Milton, we certainly all believe that we do but to John's point we've all internalized different versions of it. David McAuley: Re KA question - my concern is to avoid confusion by inserting mission. Parminder: i also put them here , puttting again Parminder: "Are you aware of any material, documented facts whereby ICANN has been or which are likely to cause it to be disabled from pursue or pursuing the actual operation of its policies and accountability mechanisms because of ICANN’s jurisdiction? If so, please provide documentation, including specific examples and references to specific laws." Jonathan Zuck: if it's "likely" it would have happened or showed signs of happening by now Milton: "facts" vs "instances" doesn't seem that important, P; if that replacement is made would you accept the new Q4 as formulated? Steve DelBianco: ICANN's mission is in Section 1.1 of the new bylaws. It is over 700 words long. I doubt anyone could quote it by memory. Do we need to include a reference to the bylaws as part of the question? Parminder: seun's text that I amended was ""Are you aware of any material, documented instance(s) where ICANN has been or will be unable to pursue the actual operation of its policies and accountability mechanisms because of ICANN’s jurisdiction? If so, please provide documentation, including specific examples and references to specific laws." Parminder: Milton, facts, plus as seun says, in future part "or will be" formulation Kavouss Arasteh: Greg. Milton: it does cover alt jurisdiction Kavouss Arasteh: If addition of mission causes so much confusion, then I withdraw my suggestion Milton: yes there is, Philip Corwin: As the current accountability mechanisms relate to the reformulated Mission, perhaps just follow the question with either the text of the WS1 Mission statement or a link to it? That way everyone has ready guidance to the same formulation. Ghislain de Salins: what about the original objective of Q4 about alternative jurisdiction in DM's proposal? (explanation it is there by GS) Milton Mueler: Still want to separate Q4 but we seem to be making progress. DM proposal is very close to consensus Farzaneh Badii: If you get a response about ICANN jurisdiction that does not directly relate to the questions but it is a problem that ICANN jurisdiction raises, is the group going to discard it?or are we gonna discuss it within the mandate of the group… Tatiana Tropina: Milton, well said. Brenda Brewer: On behalf of Seun Ojedeji: Staff is still trying to get me connected via dialout (don't have the juice for AC at my location). Just incase, kindly note my proposal for the wording of the first paragraph of question 4 and the suggestion to have the 2 paragraphs as 4a and 4b for clarity. Wale Bakare: Absolutely Vidushi Marda: I think its important to remember, as Greg has pointed out, we are not going to be "limited" by the answers that we get. Parminder: Seun may not be locatabl, but I am here. And i have ent my formulation. please put it up. Farzaneh Badii: I think we have to think about those who want to answer these questions more . Jonathan Zuck: agree with Milton.Let's just stick with David's original formulation David McAuley (RySG): Milron cutting out now Tatiana Tropina: Agree with Milton. Parminder: need to put up Sheun and my versions. Milton: Wale: No, no, no, no. We are close to agreement, let's not spend another month on trivial verbal changes Farzaneh Badii: Vidushi sent the formulations to the email. Brenda can you put it up ? Kavouss Arasteh: lets put the DM version in front of people and get the co-chair to respond to FB. Parminder: why are you not putting up that text. Mathieu Weill: I support Milton's view, let's take stock of progress Milton: As Corwin suggests, we can link to the new mission and core values statement (Staff) displaying Sean and Parminder. Milton: Zuck: I like instances better, too. As suggested in my talk, David's original is the best imho John Laprise: Again formulating the converse of these alternatives (an affirmative of the present jurisdiction) is awkward. These are negative/critical cases only. David McAuley (RySG): My concern with the two proposals on screen is the guessing/speculation called for about the future John Laprise: Agreed John Laprise: too Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): Policy Steve DelBianco: Stick with David's original, I'd say Parminder: The future should be logically deductible form "facts" Jeff Neuman: Can we do an informal poll on this call between the three Parminder: that is done all the time in policy/ insitutional work Steve DelBianco: I would not support speculation about future facts Philip Corwin: Agree with Zuck. Also, it is time to take yes for an answer. Responders will say whatever they wish to regardless of precise formulation of the question, and this group will have to sort through the answers and decide what is useful and relevant. Herb Waye Ombuds: Sorry for my late drop in... greetings all. Jeff Neuman: David's language Jeff Neuman: and these 2 Jonathan Zuck: the future should also be logically deductible from the past if the past is 19 years Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): argh. should sayo Jonathan Zuck: David's original Philip Corwin: Past is prologue Tatiana Tropina: David's Greg Shatan: Polling - DM original version (12 pro). Object to DM's original version (3). Going to Seun's option (4+, 11-). Last Parminder version (3+, 11-). DM modified version (2+, 8-) Philip Corwin: NO, either mission OR policies and accountability. Listing both just confuses things and implies that policy and accountability are separate from mission. Mathieu Weill: Important to identifiy any *objection* Milton: just added my check a bit late Steve DelBianco: Greg -- you can set your Adobe view to sort and count the check marks. We got to 13 Steve DelBianco: If support for McAuley's Q4 is deemed insufficient for consensus, then I think we move ahead with our 3 consensus questions Parminder: Grrg/ staff, pl correct the count for my proposal - it was 3 and not 2 David McAuley (RySG): I agree w Greg porposal only as alterantive - I support the Mission (alone - unrefoprmulated) first Milton: if you don't wish to propose it Greg, you don't have to; it's your proposal Mary Uduma: we are actually arguing on trivals. avri doria: we should not use such poll to determine things. if we are going to use a poll for decsion making it should be well formed and should use AC polling capabilities. My abstentions are process related. Bernard Turcotte Staff Support: @Parminder fixed. Mathieu Weill: Kavouss, my support was for testing objections on David proposal David McAuley (RySG): in other words I strongly support my original proposal Parminder: thanks Vidushi Marda: Unsure what we are voting on Tatiana Tropina: yes neitehr do I. The text seems a bit messy. Ah, mission sould be ignored, ok Philip Corwin: I am abstaining because I don't wish to vote against Greg's last formulation, but prefer David's alternative John Laprise: +1Tatiana Jonathan Zuck: Just feels like a mouthfl for a survey given the simplicity of David's formulation Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): yes Phil me a Parminder: I agree with Avri's process objection Mark Carvell UK GAC rep: Abstaining becuase it is not quite there with David's on clarity and precision. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): also Kavouss Arasteh: we have our result from the polling and this should be reported to the plenary. Jeff Neuman: I agree that the poll is not very scientific, but only 1 alternative had more support than objections and that is telling in and of itself. That is what needs to be recommended to the plenary Milton: It's clear that David's original formulation has broadest rough consensus Mathieu Weill: This was excellent consensus assessment, we're not polling or voting. Milton: Mathieu is right Greg Shatan: We seem to have a consensus position. Anyone objecting to this being the consensus? Kavouss Arasteh: This is done. Parminder: I do not know the rules to read consensus here. So just state disagreement with the formulations. avri doria: consensus is nto consensus when enough people object to calling it such Farzaneh Badii: what is enough? Tatiana Tropina: Farzy people who don't want to call it consensus :)? Steve DelBianco: If you believe that support for McAuley's Q4 is insufficient for consensus, then I think we move ahead with our 3 consensus questions Parminder: I do not think there is consensus David McAuley (RySG): i hear beeping Mathieu Weill: Can we mute Nigel line Philip Corwin: Agree with Steve. Either david's formulation has consensus support and should go forward, or no version has consensus support and we should abandon the question. Kavouss Arasteh: cannot qualify that consensus. avri doria: Philip, I would noot agree with that. Tatiana Tropina: Agree with Philip. Those who were aganist sending out Q4 at all moved enough to meet others in the middle by accepting David's version avri doria: i am not disagreeing that we have consensus, but threaten me that we have consensus or nothing, and i will join the objectors John Laprise: agreed, so motioned... Philip Corwin: @Avri-reasonable people can disagree. My view is that after all this time and effort it is time to fish or cut bait. I believe that there is consensus support for David's formulation as just demonstrated in straw poll Greg Shatan: We will go forward with the 4 questions which include DM's original version. Milton: noone is threatening anyone, Avri, merely noting the fact that no version of Q4 other than David's is going to get consensus Steve DelBianco: If some do not agree this is not consensus on 4 then we go ahead with 3 questions. Milton: noone is threatening anyone, Avri, merely noting the fact that no version of Q4 other than David's is going to get consensus avri doria: we have no consensus for sending just 3 Milton: yes we do Vidushi Marda: +1 avri Parminder: But no consensus on 1-3 either Mary Uduma: I think the 4th question has a enough support to move forward. Mathieu Weill: Not necessary to reopen the debate - this is a good compromise position and thank everyone. Steve DelBianco: Parminder -- we had 29-2 support for questions 1-3 John Laprise: Agreed Greg: move ahead with Q1-4 Kavouss Arasteh: Mathieu + 1 Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): we had 1-3 well supported earlier Milton: +1 Mathieu Jeff Neuman: @Parminder, can you please also state the basis for your objection. Philip Corwin: On the last call we achieved consensus on 1-3 avri doria: i agree that just one objection, for a postion that i beleive is understood, does not break ICANN consensus, i.e. agree that Greg got to something he can call consensus Farzaneh Badii: so we are good? 1-4 will be sent out? Wale Bakare: We have consensus on all Qs. Mary Uduma: @Parminder, not so on 1-3 Farzaneh Badii: YES! Tatiana Tropina: wow what a day Farzaneh Badii: SUCCESS Kavouss Arasteh: Appreciation to GS for the effort to get us here. Leave it as is. Still need to answer FB's question. Greg Shatan: will deal with this on the list. Adjourned.

1 0

Fwd: Jurisdiction Subgroup Questionnaire for CCWG-Plenary
by Greg Shatan Jan. 10, 2017

Jan. 10, 2017

All, The email below with clean and marked versions of the revised Questionnaire was sent to staff for distribution to the Plenary. Congratulations to the Subgroup for coming to consensus on question 4, which allowed us to complete our revisions to the draft Questionnaire and bring it back to the CCWG-Plenary tomorrow. Soon, we will be able to release our questionnaire and look forward to receiving responses to help inform the subgroup as we continue our work. Thank you for the spirit of compromise that ultimately allowed us to cross the finish line. Greg ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com> Date: Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 3:06 PM Subject: Jurisdiction Subgroup Questionnaire for CCWG-Plenary To: Bernard Turcotte <turcotte.bernard(a)gmail.com> Cc: "Mathieu.Weill(a)afnic.fr" <Mathieu.Weill(a)afnic.fr>, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe(a)sanchez.mx>, Thomas Rickert <thomas(a)rickert.net> Bernie, Attached are clean and "track changes" versions of the Questionnaire, showing changes to the prior version of the Questionnaire. Please let me know if you have any questions. Greg

3 4

Additional Materials for our call
by Greg Shatan Jan. 10, 2017

Jan. 10, 2017

Additional materials are attached.

4 4