Hello,

I just went through the notes which ofcourse will not contain details of what happened but gives an idea of how things transpired in the meeting. I have to say I was quite amazed at the level of "seeming" gang-up happening in the chat.

Even though I remain one of the people who believe that there is no (can be no) reason that would be strong enough to validate change of ICANN jurisdiction in near future, I support asking question that identifies problems based on facts and I also don't see any issue with asking factual possibilities as it's something that can be easily proved wrong if the test on the facts don't checkout. I was surprised and "somewhat" disappointed to observe the level of sharp opposition on just questions on the chat.

I have to note that there may still be need to work on how to better determine consensus in a diverse MS community like ours were each individual have varying access to resources as I think something feels broken. 

Anyway, I like to pick a question posed by farzeneh below. I don't know if it was answered. I hope the response is the latter as described in her question.

"Farzaneh Badii: (07:28) If you get a response about ICANN jurisdiction that does not directly relate to the questions but it is a problem that ICANN jurisdiction raises, is the group going to discard it?or are we gonna discuss it within the mandate of the group…"

While it seem progress was achieved in sending questions 1 to 4, all I will say is that I pray wisdom for the rapporteur as he leads this diverse group. 

Regards

Sent from my LG G4
Kindly excuse brevity and typos

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