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.Regards Kavouss 2017-06-11 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 WS1 Regards. 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=0x9A830 097CA066684
-----Original Message----- From: ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounc es@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%2BaOHUTdY0AROjojE9MXcbkL7FJ9Asgv0QvFJAN4TJmR6sT71 g@mail.gmail.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Please see attached.