2017-08-12 10:29 GMT+02:00 Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com>:

Sent from my mobile
Kindly excuse brevity and typos

On Aug 12, 2017 8:55 AM, "farzaneh badii" <farzaneh.badii@gmail.com> wrote:

Here is the sheet with the documented issues:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1zAMj3Oz8TEqbjauOyqt09Ef-1ada9TrC7i60Mk-7al4/edit#gid=0

SO: Thanks and this is one of the issues gathering exercise that I recall had been done. So again my question to Greg still stand. Is he asking for new set of issues? If yes, does it mean the ones referenced above have all been addressed?

If no, why can't the ones identified above be discussed and be done with.

It took me 10 seconds to find it.

SO: I guess that somewhat applies to Greg as well, especially as it's not clear what set of issues he is calling for when the outcome/decision/direction of the ones already listed has not been provided.

I think it may have helped to read something in the line of ".... Having addressed all the issues raised, if there are any other issues let us know....."

Here is the page where all the docs are displayed: https://community.icann.org/display/WEIA/Jurisdiction

There is no need to contact the chair to find documents.

SO: At times it's good to ask those questions in other to remind the Chair of the effort that has been made previously and to also get clarification.

I look forward to more substantive discussions on actual issues.

+1 and I thought some issues have already been documented and discussion should just be kicked off on them. Why call for issues again when the current ones are still pending? Or is it that I am way behind on this hence missing[1] something in Greg's mail. I'd like clarification if that were the case.

Regards

1. That is possible as my participation in calls has been somewhat low due to recent lack of volunteer time but do follow mails and don't think I have seen anything suggesting previous issues raised have been brought to conclusion.(apologies if am wrong).
Farzaneh
On Sat, Aug 12, 2017 at 3:20 AM, parminder <parminder@itforchange.net> wrote:
On Saturday 12 August 2017 11:37 AM, Seun Ojedeji wrote:

Hello Greg,

If I recall correctly there was a call to log issues twice now. Can you provide the URL where the issues are documented for people to pick from OR are you suggesting to hit another reset and start logging issues again?

Regards
PS: I hope I will get a response this time as I don't get response from you including when I even write you privately to remind you of my question.

To add to this, I asked for the original issues doc twice, and quite pointedly the second time in a separate email, to which Jorge responded also asking for it, and reminding that he too had asked for it earlier once.

This is the most extra-ordinary chair-ship of a working group that I have ever witnessed! Why dont we just get told what report we have to sign off on and close the matters.

parminder
Sent from my mobile
Kindly excuse brevity and typos

On Aug 12, 2017 12:13 AM, "Greg Shatan" <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:

Jurisdiction Subgroup Members,

As explained by Staff at our last meeting on 9 August, we have until 11 October to submit a draft set of recommendations to the Plenary for consideration as a first reading if any such recommendations are to be accepted by the Plenary, published for Public Consultation and included in the Final WS2 Report.

In other words, we have about 8 weeks to develop a draft set of recommendations and come to consensus on these.

Obviously, given this time-frame, we have to accept that we will not be able to address all issues. In fact, the only realistic approach, if we want to deliver any recommendations, is to pick a handful of issues (2 to 4) on which we can all agree and for which we believe we can propose recommendations that will achieve consensus.

I remain optimistic that we can do this if we can agree, meaning everyone will have to compromise, to select this limited number of issues over the next very few weeks and work diligently at meetings and on the list to develop recommendations for these.

To reach this objective I would propose the following approach:

Each participant should pick one issue which they believe is in scope for us and post that issue to the list prior to our meeting of 23 August. More specifically:

Issues should be very specific -- avoid open-ended, abstract or omnibus issues

Issue description should be succinct -- 12 standard lines maximum

Proposed solutions – if you have a possible solution or recommendation which should be considered, please include it (again, being succinct).

Put your issue in a new email (not a reply), with the subject ISSUE: [name of issue]

The sooner, the better

I look forward to discussing this proposal at our next meeting of 16 August and I would encourage participants to comment on this proposal in response to this email prior to that meeting.

Greg

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

Raphaël Beauregard-Lacroix

Sciences Po Law School 2014-2017

LinkedIn - @rbl0012 - M: +33 7 86 39 18 15