I’m fine with this though I’d tweak the language to make the two halves of the proposed Q4 as symmetric as possible.

 

Best regards,

 

John Laprise, Ph.D.

Consulting Scholar

 

http://www.linkedin.com/in/jplaprise/

 

 

 

From: ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Greg Shatan
Sent: Monday, January 9, 2017 5:52 PM
To: MSSI Secretariat <mssi-secretariat@icann.org>
Cc: ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org
Subject: Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Jurisdiction Questionnaire: RESPONSE REQUESTED

 

Seeing some support for David McAuley's suggestion for Question 4 and some support for Alternative 1, I wonder if a combination of the two might be able to gain consensus support.  Below (and attached in redline) is my suggested combination:

 

Are you aware of any material, documented instance(s) where ICANN has been 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.

Are you aware of and able to document the existence of an alternative jurisdiction where ICANN would not be so prevented from pursuing the actual operation of ICANN’s policies and accountability mechanisms? If so, please provide documentation, including  specific examples, references to specific laws, case studies, other studies, and analysis.

I look forward to discussion of this and the other alternatives regarding Question 4 on our call tomorrow, and before that, on this list.

Greg

 

On Mon, Jan 9, 2017 at 3:52 PM, MSSI Secretariat <mssi-secretariat@icann.org> wrote:

Hello all,

 

In reply to Paul Rosenzweig, the Jurisdiction meeting on Tuesday, 10 January is at 13:00 UTC.

 

With kind regards,

Brenda Brewer, Projects & Operations Assistant 

Multistakeholder Strategy & Strategic Initiatives (MSSI)

Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)

 

 

From: <ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com>
Date: Monday, January 9, 2017 at 2:46 PM
To: 'Phil Corwin' <psc@vlaw-dc.com>, "'Mueller, Milton L'" <milton@gatech.edu>
Cc: "ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org" <ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org>
Subject: Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Jurisdiction Questionnaire: RESPONSE REQUESTED

 

What time is the call tomorrow?  I apologize, but I lost track of our scheduling decisions.

 

Paul

 

 

From: Phil Corwin [mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com]
Sent: Monday, January 9, 2017 3:16 PM
To: Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com>; 'Mueller, Milton L' <milton@gatech.edu>
Cc: ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org
Subject: RE: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Jurisdiction Questionnaire: RESPONSE REQUESTED

 

Whatever the WG’s decision, I certainly hope we can decide this with finality on tomorrow’s call. Because right now we are like a car spinning its tires and just sinking deeper into the mud. We have already spent far too much time on this questionnaire matter.

 

Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal

Virtualaw LLC

1155 F Street, NW

Suite 1050

Washington, DC 20004

202-559-8597/Direct

202-559-8750/Fax

202-255-6172/Cell

 

Twitter: @VlawDC

 

"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey

 

From: ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Paul Rosenzweig
Sent: Monday, January 09, 2017 3:02 PM
To: 'Mueller, Milton L'
Cc: ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org
Subject: Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Jurisdiction Questionnaire: RESPONSE REQUESTED

 

I gather, however, that some disagree and say “all now or none ever.”  If that is my choice I choose none.  If the idea of separation gains any traction, I’d be open to consideration but I fear it would not bet any better definition later and we would just be kicking the can down the road.

 

Paul

 

 

From: Mueller, Milton L [mailto:milton@gatech.edu]
Sent: Monday, January 9, 2017 2:28 PM
To: Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com>
Cc: ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org
Subject: RE: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Jurisdiction Questionnaire: RESPONSE REQUESTED

 

Paul

 

Others in the group feel strongly that question 4 should go out.  Some feel so strongly that they are of the view that it is all or nothing.  While I don’t agree with them and while I certainly don’t agree with the idea that saying “all or nothing” is respectful of other people, I am not going to try any longer to change their minds.

 

MM: Those who suggest that we should not send out a fact-finding missive at all because of Q4 also seem to be taking an “all or nothing approach” are they not?

The reasonable solution, as I have said before, is to separate Q4 from the others and work on it some more to make it take a form that is acceptable to a broader range of WG participants.

 

No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com[avg.com]
Version: 2016.0.7996 / Virus Database: 4749/13706 - Release Date: 01/04/17


_______________________________________________
Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list
Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction