Dear All,Consensus is consensus without any adjective.I disagree to add an adjective ,like soft or rough or relative or .... to it.This is an invention by a specific group of people and does not have any valid and legitimate basis.I hope people in their reply respect others withourt recourse to any irony.RegardsKavouss2017-06-11 0:19 GMT+02:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>:Paul,I know you since many many years and in particular during your particular position in WS1Regards.Kavouss_______________________________________________2017-06-10 23:32 GMT+02:00 Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com>:Nope you are perfectly reasonable. But in this instance I think your perception is incorrect. I could write the next post from the other side myself if I had to. We aren't talking past each other -- we just disagree.
To put it simply, you proposed an elegant compromise. Most of the majority are willing to accept it. So let's just do it.
Paul
Paul Rosenzweig
paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com
O: +1 (202) 547-0660
M: +1 (202) 329-9650
VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739
www.redbranchconsulting.com
My PGP Key: https://keys.mailvelope.com/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x9A830097CA066684
-----Original Message-----
From: ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of avri doria
Sent: Saturday, June 10, 2017 4:06 PM
To: ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org
Subject: Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] RES: Question Presented (Greg Shatan)
Hi,
Well that is the impression I have. When I see responses to the various positions I think I am seeing people talk past each other.
But I accept that you may not see me as a reasonable person.
avri
On 10-Jun-17 15:54, Paul Rosenzweig wrote:
> I don't think that after a year anyone can reasonably say that the minority position here has not been heard, understood and considered. It just hasn't carried the day.
>
> Paul
>
> Paul Rosenzweig
> paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com
> O: +1 (202) 547-0660
> M: +1 (202) 329-9650
> VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739
> www.redbranchconsulting.com
> My PGP Key:
> https://keys.mailvelope.com/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x9A830097CA06668
> 4
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org
> [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of avri doria
> Sent: Saturday, June 10, 2017 2:06 PM
> To: ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org
> Subject: Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] RES: Question Presented (Greg Shatan)
>
> Hi,
>
> My concern is that the minority may be large enough to deny group consensus. I am not sure there is overwhelming consensus, especially when you count those of us that are somewhere in the middle.
>
> Also in any form of ICANN or rough consensus, it is important that no minority feel its position has not been heard, understood and fully considered.
>
> Greg is appropriately trying to call consensus, and, I think also appropriately, those who feel they have not been heard, understood and considered feel we are not there yet.
>
> Reading the degree of misunderstanding there still seems to b eabout the various position of others, I tend to also agree we have not yet reached any sort of ICANN or rough consensus.
>
> avri
>
> On 10-Jun-17 11:34, Paul Rosenzweig wrote:
>> Greg
>>
>> There was an overwhelming consensus for your approach both on the
>> call and in the subsequent discussions on the list where your ideas
>> (or my somewhat modified version) garnered significant support. It
>> is time, and past time, for this group to put this issue to bed.
>>
>> I can understand why those whose opinions have not carried the day
>> would prefer to not resolve the issue, but if we cannot move forward
>> at this juncture with a wide consensus in the group (albeit with
>> minority objection from the representatives of several governments)
>> then we should just close the group out altogether.
>>
>> Paul
>>
>> PS -- You do not need to elaborate on your handling of this
>> contentious group, which has been quite patient.
>>
>> Paul Rosenzweig
>> paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com
>> O: +1 (202) 547-0660
>> M: +1 (202) 329-9650
>> VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739
>> www.redbranchconsulting.com
>> My PGP Key:
>> https://keys.mailvelope.com/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x9A830097CA0666
>> 8
>> 4
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org
>> [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Thiago Braz
>> Jardim Oliveira
>> Sent: Friday, June 9, 2017 6:47 PM
>> To: ws2-jurisdiction <ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org>
>> Subject: [Ws2-jurisdiction] RES: Question Presented (Greg Shatan)
>>
>> Dear Greg,
>>
>> It would have been best if you could have sent your question to the
>> group prior to the call, and not only as the call was happening.
>> People who were not present, and only saw the proposal in their
>> mailing list afterwards, might perhaps be misled into thinking that
>> the question you drafted came from the group, or that it reflected
>> some degree of consensus within the group.
>>
>> May I highlight, in that context, that you disregarded the suggestion
>> to submit Jorge's proposal to the group for consideration. His
>> proposal, which I and others seconded, was to have the group discuss
>> the mandate in respect of concrete cases, and not develop an ex-ante position in abstract.
>>
>> As to the question itself, my first observation is that we are not
>> supposed to ask anything like this now. As reflected in our revised
>> work plan of 24 April 2017, it was agreed that "the Subgroup will
>> identify issues before it goes on to explore remedies"; "for each
>> issue, the group will then look at proposed remedies"; "the group
>> should not discuss a remedy until an issue has been identified that
>> requires discussion of that remedy". The question you drafted goes in
>> the opposite direction, as it concerns one imaginable remedy (change
>> to ICANN's status or location), prior to having identified what are the issues to be discussed by the group.
>>
>> My second remark is that your proposal makes a couple of assumptions
>> that are not accurate nor necessary. For example, in the first bullet
>> point, you assume that no form of immunity from domestic jurisdiction
>> is possible for ICANN in case it remains an organisation incorporated
>> in California. This is not true, as immunity arrangements are
>> possible under different forms. Take the ICRC, which has domestic and
>> international law immunities, even though it remains a private organisation governed by Swiss law.
>>
>> My third remark is about the logical chain in the third bullet point.
>> There is this suggestion that if we can't reach consensus on the
>> mandate, then we would need to refer the question you drafted to the
>> Plenary. Well, if there is no consensus on the mandate, then we
>> should simply refer the mandate itself to the Plenary, not any
>> question pre-empting hypothetical outcomes which could, by the way,
>> only be reached in case the group engages in substantive discussions
>> on the issues identified by the group and on the correspondent possible remedies..
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>> Thiago
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Mensagem original-----
>> De: Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com] Enviada em:
>> sexta-feira, 9 de junho de 2017 01:47
>> Para: Kavouss Arasteh
>> Cc: Thiago Braz Jardim Oliveira; ws2-jurisdiction
>> Assunto: Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Question Presented (Greg Shatan)
>>
>> Thiago, this slide was prepared prior to the call as a strawman to
>> assist with the discussion. As a result of the call, we now have a
>> number of suggestions for changes or alternatives to the question, so
>> we have moved beyond the strawman. Of course, as you have noted,
>> some version of this question has been discussed by the Subgroup before.
>>
>>
>> Kavouss, since we have moved beyond this formulation of the question,
>> I'm not sure it's necessary to address whether the strawman question
>> is biased or leads to a predetermined judgment (on the latter, since
>> there are at least two opposing answers, I don't see how that can be
>> the case). However, if you have any observations you would like to
>> share that would be helpful in revising the question or preparing an
>> alternative to it, please do share your thoughts. Thank you.
>>
>> Greg
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Jun 8, 2017 at 5:08 PM, Kavouss Arasteh
>> <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Dear Greg,
>> Dear All, It was not,
>> The question is biased giving a prédétermine judgement
>> I do not agree with this question.
>> Regards
>> Kavouss
>>
>> 2017-06-08 22:48 GMT+02:00 Kavouss Arasteh
>> <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>:
>>
>>
>> Dear All, It was not,
>> The question is biased giving a prédétermine judgement
>> I do not agree with this question.
>> Regards
>>
>> Kavouss
>>
>>
>> 2017-06-08 20:21 GMT+02:00 Thiago Braz Jardim Oliveira
>> <thiago.jardim@itamaraty.gov.br <mailto:thiago.jardim@itamaraty.gov.br> >:
>>
>>
>> Greg,
>>
>> Help me with this. Was this question you wanted to discuss at
>> today's call presented to the group earlier than today or before
>> today's call?
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Thiago
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Mensagem original-----
>> De: ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org
>> <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org>
>> [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org
>> <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org> ] Em nome de
>> ws2-jurisdiction-request@icann.org
>> <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-request@icann.org>
>> Enviada em: quinta-feira, 8 de junho de 2017 10:29
>> Para: ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org
>> Assunto: Ws2-jurisdiction Digest, Vol 12, Issue 18
>>
>> Send Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list submissions to
>> ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org
>>
>> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>>
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
>> <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction>
>> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>> ws2-jurisdiction-request@icann.org
>> <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-request@icann.org>
>>
>> You can reach the person managing the list at
>> ws2-jurisdiction-owner@icann.org
>> <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-owner@icann.org>
>>
>> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more
>> specific than "Re: Contents of Ws2-jurisdiction digest..."
>>
>>
>> Today's Topics:
>>
>> 1. Question Presented (Greg Shatan)
>>
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> -
>>
>> Message: 1
>> Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2017 09:28:50 -0400
>> From: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com>
>> To: ws2-jurisdiction <ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org>
>> Cc: "acct-staff@icann.org" <acct-staff@icann.org>
>> Subject: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Question Presented
>> Message-ID:
>>
>> <CA+aOHUTdY0AROjojE9MXcbkL7FJ9Asgv0QvFJAN4TJmR6sT71g@mail.gmail.com
>> <mailto:CA%2BaOHUTdY0AROjojE9MXcbkL7FJ9Asgv0QvFJAN4TJmR6sT71g@mail.gmail.com
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>>
>> Please see attached.
>> -------------- next part --------------
>> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
>> URL:
>> <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ws2-jurisdiction/attachments/20170608/
>> d
>> 160a9d
>> 9/attachment.html
>> <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ws2-jurisdiction/attachments/20170608/
>> d
>> 160a9d
>> 9/attachment.html> >
>> -------------- next part --------------
>> A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
>> Name: QUESTION ON SCOPE OF CCWG.pdf
>> Type: application/pdf
>> Size: 350997 bytes
>> Desc: not available
>> URL:
>> <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ws2-jurisdiction/attachments/20170608/
>> d
>> 160a9d
>> 9/QUESTIONONSCOPEOFCCWG.pdf
>> <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ws2-jurisdiction/attachments/20170608/
>> d
>> 160a9d
>> 9/QUESTIONONSCOPEOFCCWG.pdf> >
>> -------------- next part --------------
>> A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
>> Name: QUESTION ON SCOPE OF CCWG.docx
>> Type:
>> application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
>> Size: 15327 bytes
>> Desc: not available
>> URL:
>> <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ws2-jurisdiction/attachments/20170608/
>> d
>> 160a9d
>> 9/QUESTIONONSCOPEOFCCWG.docx
>> <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ws2-jurisdiction/attachments/20170608/
>> d
>> 160a9d
>> 9/QUESTIONONSCOPEOFCCWG.docx> >
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list
>> Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org
>>
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
>> <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction>
>>
>>
>> End of Ws2-jurisdiction Digest, Vol 12, Issue 18
>> ************************************************
>> _______________________________________________
>> Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list
>> Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org
>>
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
>> <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list
>> Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
>> <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list
>> Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list
>> Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
>>
>>
>
>
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list
> Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
>
>
_______________________________________________
Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list
Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
_______________________________________________
Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list
Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list
Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction