Just to clarify, the entries in the "Distillation" document are meant to be read independently. So no entry is "burdened" by any other. (The only exception is the revision by Thiago of another entry -- these two are obviously linked in that manner.) Greg On Wed, Jun 14, 2017 at 5:36 AM, parminder <parminder@itforchange.net> wrote:
I may also add that at the meetings of UN (CSTD) WG on enhanced cooperation which is tasked to look at the global institutional architecture of IG, of which I happen to be a member, we have often been told by Northern gov reps that the question of jurisdiction over iCANN is right now being dealt by ICANN's own processes, implying CCWG and its jurisdiction sub group.... I have been a part of several stakeholder meetings on IANA transition in India and not for once I saw any doubt in anyone's mind about what the jurisdiction question was about -- whatever be one's views on the question. Just to show that how the mandate of this group is globally understood.
Now, after months of work, for that very ICANN WG to come up with strange questions and doubts about the very meaning of the jurisdiction question --- mind it, not yet differences in resolution of the problems --- is certainly a most strange spectacle.
parminder
On Wednesday 14 June 2017 02:36 PM, parminder wrote:
First I must apologise to Greg who had asked all to attend the last f2f call if they had a view on the subject -- I got taken down by viral fever the day of the call and have recovered only now . So pl allow me to express my views as below.
Seeing the docs on the so-called different positions forwarded for this meeting I am really confused as to what we are trying to do at this late stage. Why and how did we come to the question of whether ICANN's US/ California incorporation is to be taken an "untouchable issue"? The process begun with the 4 conditions set up by NTIA, and this "condition" was not there. I have not seen it added since. The jurisdiction issue was picked up as an important one by many right at the start of the CCWG process. At that stage we were told that work-stream 1 will only deal with such issues that "must" be resolved for the transition to take place. Since what jurisdiction applies to ICANN is not one such question, it will be dealt by work stream 2. . The WS2 mandate doc goes into layers of jurisdiction with the place of incorporation being a key layer.... How then suddenly have we been taken up by this existentialist doubt whether the issue is at all in our mandate or not? And since a lot of people who are raising this doubt were also among the ones initially most eager to push the jurisdiction issue to work stream 2 with the "not necessary to resolve for IANA transition" logic, it appears, in fact, rather dishonest to claim now that well, work stream 1's outputs have already anticipated and closed this issue. This is very frustrating.
In the longer doc "potential position alternatives", in section 1, I cant see the difference between approach A and B. They look exactly the same to me -- the group proceeds with the assumption that ICANN will remain incorporated in US/ California and this part is not up for discussion or recs. Cant understand why a 2 positions situation is being presented as 3 positions? One position wants to take ICANN US/ Calif. incorporation as given and incontestable and the other position does not agree with it.
Not clear how the subject matter of section II is different from sec I? Here, approach C which is put as " We should look to solve the problems ICANN jurisdiction raise". If that is not a valid short form of what this group is mandated to do, I really need to be told what it has been trying to do!!??
And in section III, about possible immunity for ICANN, approach A speaks of partial (or tailored) immunity, which precisely means to exclude those laws that are needed to keep ICANN's accountability mechanisms functioning. In so far as the next two approaches B and C focus on accountability mechanisms, I dont see how the three approaches are mutually exclusive.
The document on 'distillation of positions" is no clearer. Once again approaches in the first two columns looks the same to me. The third column where the approach of lets not wait to sort out the ICANN's incorporation question would be agreeable to some participants is gotten heavily burdened in the last row with the proposal to seek legal advice on what change of incorporation (and not immunity, mind it) will do to work stream 1 outputs ....
I am unable to consider this whole exercise as fair.
parminder
On Wednesday 14 June 2017 11:50 AM, Greg Shatan wrote:
All,
In addition to the agenda, the summaries we will discuss are attached.
Also attached is the chart containing the "raw" statements made during the prior call (plus the changes suggested by Thiago on the list), as well as a distillation of those statements (since a number were essentially repetitive or overlapping).
Greg
_______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing listWs2-jurisdiction@icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
_______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing listWs2-jurisdiction@icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
_______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction