NTIA's letter says “The successful completion of the IANA stewardship transition proves that the multistakeholder model can work. One of its strengths is that it /*provides opportunities for all interested parties to have a voice in decision making*/, not just those most directly involved or impacted by ICANN.” (Emphasis added) Are we here living up to that ideal? Much less give the outsiders a role in decision making, we are afraid to even receive information from them -- afraid of what the 'outsiders' may say, and what that may then lead to. This is not acceptable. This is an attempt to capture decision making. parminder On Tuesday 10 January 2017 05:38 AM, Phil Corwin wrote:
Of significant relevance to this subgroup and our ongoing discussion, I note that a letter formally terminating the Affirmation of Commitments between ICANN and the United States has been posted at https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/strickling-to-crocker-0...
From the first page of the letter signed by ICANN Board Chairman Steve Crocker on January 3, 2017:
*ICANN’s commitment to remain*a not-for-profit corporation, *headquartered in the United States of America* with offices around the world is embedded in ICANN’s Articles of Incorporation, which requires community agreement to modify, and in the Bylaws, which *specify that ICANN’s California office is its principal place of business*. (Emphasis added)
*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:*Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com] *Sent:* Monday, January 09, 2017 6:52 PM *To:* MSSI Secretariat *Cc:* Paul Rosenzweig; Phil Corwin; Mueller, Milton L; 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 <mailto: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 <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com <mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com>> *Date: *Monday, January 9, 2017 at 2:46 PM *To: *'Phil Corwin' <psc@vlaw-dc.com <mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com>>, "'Mueller, Milton L'" <milton@gatech.edu <mailto:milton@gatech.edu>> *Cc: *"ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org>" <ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org <mailto: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
Paul Rosenzweig
paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com <mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com>
O: +1 (202) 547-0660 <tel:%28202%29%20547-0660>
M: +1 (202) 329-9650 <tel:%28202%29%20329-9650>
VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 <tel:%28202%29%20738-1739>
www.redbranchconsulting.com[redbranchconsulting.com] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.redbranchconsulting....>
My PGP Key: https://keys.mailvelope.com/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x9A830097CA066684[keys.mailvelope.com] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__keys.mailvelope.com_pks...>
*From:*Phil Corwin [mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com <mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com>] *Sent:* Monday, January 9, 2017 3:16 PM *To:* Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com <mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com>>; 'Mueller, Milton L' <milton@gatech.edu <mailto:milton@gatech.edu>> *Cc:* ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org <mailto: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 <tel:%28202%29%20559-8597>/Direct*
*202-559-8750 <tel:%28202%29%20559-8750>/Fax*
*202-255-6172 <tel:%28202%29%20255-6172>/Cell*
* *
*Twitter: @VlawDC*
*/"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey/*
*From:*ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org <mailto: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 <mailto: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
Paul Rosenzweig
paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com <mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com>
O: +1 (202) 547-0660 <tel:%28202%29%20547-0660>
M: +1 (202) 329-9650 <tel:%28202%29%20329-9650>
VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 <tel:%28202%29%20738-1739>
www.redbranchconsulting.com[redbranchconsulting.com] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.redbranchconsulting....>
My PGP Key: https://keys.mailvelope.com/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x9A830097CA066684[keys.mailvelope.com] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__keys.mailvelope.com_pks...>
*From:*Mueller, Milton L [mailto:milton@gatech.edu] *Sent:* Monday, January 9, 2017 2:28 PM *To:* Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com <mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com>> *Cc:* ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org <mailto: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] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.avg.com_email-2Dsign...> Version: 2016.0.7996 / Virus Database: 4749/13706 - Release Date: 01/04/17
_______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org <mailto:Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
------------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com/email-signature> 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