Hello all,
In reply to Paul Rosenzweig, the Jurisdiction meeting on Tuesday, 10 January is at 13:00 UTC.
With kind regards,
Brenda Brewer, Projects & Operations Assistant
Multistakeholder Strategy & Strategic Initiatives (MSSI)
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
From:
<ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com>
Date: Monday, January 9, 2017 at 2:46 PM
To: 'Phil Corwin' <psc@vlaw-dc.com>, "'Mueller, Milton L'" <milton@gatech.edu>
Cc: "ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org" <ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org>
Subject: Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Jurisdiction Questionnaire: RESPONSE REQUESTED
What time is the call tomorrow? I apologize, but I lost track of our scheduling decisions.
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[redbranchconsulting.com]
My PGP Key:
https://keys.mailvelope.com/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x9A830097CA066684[keys.mailvelope.com]
From: Phil Corwin [mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com]
Sent: Monday, January 9, 2017 3:16 PM
To: Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com>; 'Mueller, Milton L' <milton@gatech.edu>
Cc: ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org
Subject: RE: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Jurisdiction Questionnaire: RESPONSE REQUESTED
Whatever the WG’s decision, I certainly hope we can decide this with finality on tomorrow’s call. Because right now we are like a car spinning its tires and just sinking deeper
into the mud. We have already spent far too much time on this questionnaire matter.
Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal
Virtualaw LLC
1155 F Street, NW
Suite 1050
Washington, DC 20004
202-559-8597/Direct
202-559-8750/Fax
202-255-6172/Cell
Twitter: @VlawDC
"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey
From:
ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org]
On Behalf Of Paul Rosenzweig
Sent: Monday, January 09, 2017 3:02 PM
To: 'Mueller, Milton L'
Cc: ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org
Subject: Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Jurisdiction Questionnaire: RESPONSE REQUESTED
I gather, however, that some disagree and say “all now or none ever.” If that is my choice I choose none. If the idea of separation gains any traction, I’d be open to consideration but
I fear it would not bet any better definition later and we would just be kicking the can down the road.
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[redbranchconsulting.com]
My PGP Key:
https://keys.mailvelope.com/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x9A830097CA066684[keys.mailvelope.com]
From: Mueller, Milton L [mailto:milton@gatech.edu]
Sent: Monday, January 9, 2017 2:28 PM
To: Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com>
Cc: ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org
Subject: RE: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Jurisdiction Questionnaire: RESPONSE REQUESTED
Paul
Others in the group feel strongly that question 4 should go out. Some feel so strongly that they are of the view that it is all or nothing. While I don’t agree with them and while I certainly
don’t agree with the idea that saying “all or nothing” is respectful of other people, I am not going to try any longer to change their minds.
MM: Those who suggest that we should not send out a fact-finding missive at all because of Q4 also seem to be taking an “all or nothing approach” are they not?
The reasonable solution, as I have said before, is to separate Q4 from the others and work on it some more to make it take a form that is acceptable to a broader range of
WG participants.
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG -
www.avg.com[avg.com]
Version: 2016.0.7996 / Virus Database: 4749/13706 - Release Date: 01/04/17