Kavouss,

Responses below.

On Fri, Dec 30, 2016 at 3:32 AM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
Grec,
Once again you decided for everybody<.

​I did not decide anything.  I merely provided a "strawman" (a proposal intended to generate discussion​).  This was in response to your previous concern that the group was dealing with too many alternatives.  Participants are free to respond as they see fit (as Avri has now done). 

Question 1

We should not be selective talking about business and privacy as there would be other topics. I did suggest “ activities “

Thank you for reiterating your earlier concern. "​Activities" is in alternative 1, so it is not limited to business or privacy.​  We'll need to see if there is sufficient support for your concern.

 Question 3

It is senseless that you ask somebody to talk about the experience of somebody else.

Pls carefully reconsider the matter.

Your experience is your experience which reflects what you have been encountered. I cannot ask you to talk about the experience that I have been encountered unless I convey that to you.

This is senseless  and should be dropped

​Thank you again for reiterating your prior concern.  Many other people in the group think this question does make sense and should be included.  To clarify, the question does not ask the respondent "to talk about the experience that [a third party has] encountered."  Indeed, it does not ask the respondent to talk or write at all.  It asks the respondent to provide "copies of and/or links to any verifiable reports of experiences of other parties."  In other words, third party experiences that have been "conveyed" through correspondence, articles, blog posts, judicial/arbitral opinions, etc. available to the respondent or more generally available.
 ​

We must have consensus ,full consensus.

​There is no requirement for full consensus.  This subgroup, like the full working group (and every other ICANN working group in which I've been involved) operates on "consensus," defined as "a position where a small minority disagrees, but most agree."  Most often, consensus is achieved informally, through discussion and modification, until a result that "most agree" with is achieved.
 

Since the question 1 and 3 have been drafted by X and X plus few others ( traditional group 9 support that it does not mean it is ok$

Pls prove that I am wrong

​It's common to have initial drafts prepared by a small group of volunteers.  Volunteers were sought and 2 came forward (it would have been nice to have more than 2 people volunteer, but that was what we got from the subgroup).  This small group drafted the initial versions of questions 1 and 2, which were sent to the entire subgroup and freely discussed over the course of at least 3 meetings and on the list, including getting a first and second reading in the subgroup.  At that point, it does not matter who prepared the initial draft; what exists is the work of the subgroup.​  In the straw poll, "most agreed" to these 2 questions.  Question 3 was not drafted by the small group at all; it came out of several suggestions in the subgroup.  In the straw poll, "most agreed" to Question 3 as well.  Question 4 was initially suggested by one participant; the current version (presented to the Plenary) was an attempt to incorporate suggestions from other participants.  In the straw poll, Question 4 did not have support at the level where "most agreed" to Question 4.

Based on the above, it seems fairly clear to me that Questions 1, 2 and 3 are "ok" in the eyes of the subgroup.

Kavouss

​Greg​

 

2016-12-30 8:56 GMT+01:00 parminder <parminder@itforchange.net>:

Greg

I prepfer a shorter preamble as in Alternative 1, but before that, I would like to ask where does this wording come from

"... the Jurisdiction subgroup is addressing jurisdiction-related questions, including how choice of jurisdiction and applicable laws for dispute settlement impact ICANN's accountability.

Is it ad verbatim from an authoritative text or a kind of paraphrasing the mandate... I would especially want to know why this part ends with "..impact ICANN's accountability" and not with "impact actual operation of policies and accountability mechanisms".... In most text on this group's mandate I see both "actual operation of policies" and "accountability mechanism" stated together. Why would we now limit this process to looking at the 'Impact on ICANN's accountability" alone. As you would have seen, most of the discussion here pertained to impact of jurisdiction on "actual operation of policies". We cannot leave that out.
Thanks, parminder


On Friday 30 December 2016 12:57 PM, Greg Shatan wrote:
REMINDER to READ this email and RESPOND, at least with regard to the questionnaire (see attachment).  I've slightly revised the email for clarity.

To try and focus this discussion, I'll provide a strawman for how to deal with the alternatives:

Preamble -- Use Alternative 1.
Question 1 -- Use Alternative 1.
Question 2 -- No change
Question 3 -- No change.
Question 4 -- Use Alternative 1.

Thank you for your responses.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, Dec 27, 2016 at 3:28 PM
Subject: Focus, Working Method and Revisions to Proposed Questions: RESPONSE REQUESTED [was: Jurisdiction Proposed Questions and Poll Results]
To: ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org


All,

I'm sending this to the Jurisdiction subgroup list, since this was initially send to a discussion thread on jurisdiction taking place on the CCWG list. 

Please respond here, rather than there.  Thank you.

Greg

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, Dec 27, 2016 at 2:56 AM
Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] RES: Jurisdiction Proposed Questions and Poll Results
To: "accountability-cross-community@icann.org" <accountability-cross-community@icann.org>


All:

Two quick but important points:

1.  We have strayed from the basic topic in front of us, which is to decide on the formulation of the questions to be sent out. 
​​
I have gone through the emails and meeting notes and pulled the alternative formulations and revisions in to a single document, attached to this email.    

With regard to question 4, I believe that the best way to move forward is to see if one of the alternatives gets stronger support within the CCWG.  If we can get to a point where there is broad support for the question without significant opposition that may resolve issues relating to whether and when this question will be sent out.

2.  Our overall agreed-upon working method is to first identify, discuss and arrive at a list of
​problems
, and then move on to identifying, discussing and arriving at a list of potential remedies for each
​problem
 on our list.  We are still working on
​problems
.  For a remedy to be up for discussion when we move to discussing remedies, that remedy needs to provide a solution to a
​ problem
.  We can't discuss a potential remedy without having a
​ problem​
it is intended to solve.  If there is a potential "remedy" but it does not solve any of our
​problems​
, we won't discuss it.  

We've already put aside one potential "remedy" until we see whether we identify any
​problems​
 it would solve -- the "remedy" of changing ICANN's jurisdiction of incorporation or headquarters location.  "Immunity" is another potential remedy that we need to deal with the same way.  Skipping forward to discussions of remedies is only slowing down our discussion of
​problems
.  I strongly suggest we refocus on
​problems​
, so that we can get to the discussion of remedies.  Once we've agreed on a list of
​problems​
, a discussion of remedies will be more productive.

Our working method of dealing with
​problems​
 first and then remedies may also help us find agreement on a way to deal with question 4.  Questions 1-3 clearly deal with issues.  Perhaps a version of question 4 that is limited to asking for
​problems​
 will get broader support ("Alternative 1" on the attachment may fit this description.)

​Greg​

​The following responses were received on the Accountability list:

Parminder: 
Greg/ All

I think the Alternative 1, which you take as likely candidate for broader support, is fine. I list this formulation below:

What are the advantages or disadvantages, if any, relating to ICANN's jurisdiction*, particularly with regard to the actual operation of ICANN’s policies and accountability mechanisms? Please support your response with appropriate examples, references to specific laws, case studies, other studies, and analysis. In particular, please indicate if there are current or past instances that highlight such advantages or problems.

(* For these questions, “ICANN’s jurisdiction” refers to (a) ICANN being subject to U.S. and California law as a result of its incorporation and location in California, (b) ICANN being subject to the laws of any other country as a result of its location within or contacts with that country, or (c) any “choice of law” or venue provisions in agreements with ICANN.)

ENDS
Lets move on with it. We are spending too much time on framing a question.

​Kavouss Arasteh: 
Grec,
Tks again,
As I said I believe ,it is counter productive to discuss many alternative,
I could agree with formulation of Parminder
Regards
Kavouss​

Sam Lanfranco:
Greg, 

Thank you for presenting alternatives for reaching agreement on a Roadmap for Moving Forward to identify operational issues embedded in the overall “jurisdiction” issue. It is important to recognize that what is being proposed is the choice of roadmap for moving forward. Where this takes us will flow from the assembly of evidence, the application of analysis, and the resulting array of possible options for addressing jurisdiction base operational issues.  

Sam Lanfranco



_______________________________________________
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