Thank you Vinay.
That seems to be a reasonable way forward, which I support.
Best
Rafael
De: ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org]
En nombre de Vinay Kesari
Enviado el: miércoles, 23 de noviembre de 2016 9:39
Para: matthew shears
CC: ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org
Asunto: Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Multiple Layers of Jurisdiction Document
Hi Matthew and Kavouss, the decision arrived at during the meeting was to draft a brief set of questions, aimed at a wider group of stakeholders. The purpose would be to solicit factual input relevant to the issue we are considering, ie. “The
Influence of ICANN’s Existing Jurisdictions (Governing Law and Venue) Relating to Resolution of Disputes”.
The intention isn't to open up either of the two documents for public input or comment at this point, or ask for potential solutions. Hope that clarifies.
Regards,
Vinay
On 22 November 2016 at 21:41, matthew shears <mshears@cdt.org> wrote:
Hi Jorge, all
I think it is to early. I am uncomfortable with the idea of sending out the "influence" doc in particular as it contains a number of questions and hypotheses that would preferably be answered beforehand. I do not believe a document should be circulated
for comment and possible solutions when some of the issues raised in the document may not actually be problems at all. This would be unnecessarily confusing. Preferably these unknowns would be answered, resolved or discarded before the doc is circulated.
Matthew
On 21/11/2016 18:55,
Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch wrote: