All:
Two quick but important points:
1. We have strayed from the basic topic in front of us, which is to decide on the formulation of the questions to be sent out.
I have gone through the emails and meeting notes and pulled the alternative formulations and revisions in to a single document, attached to this email.
With regard to question 4, I believe that the best way to move forward is to see if one of the alternatives gets stronger support within the CCWG. If we can get to a point where there is broad support for the question without significant opposition that may resolve issues relating to whether and when this question will be sent out.
2. Our overall agreed-upon working method is to first identify, discuss and arrive at a list of
problems
, and then move on to identifying, discussing and arriving at a list of potential remedies for each
problem
on our list. We are still working on
problems
. For a remedy to be up for discussion when we move to discussing remedies, that remedy needs to provide a solution to a
problem
. We can't discuss a potential remedy without having a
problem
it is intended to solve. If there is a potential "remedy" but it does not solve any of our
problems
, we won't discuss it.
We've already put aside one potential "remedy" until we see whether we identify any
problems
it would solve -- the "remedy" of changing ICANN's jurisdiction of incorporation or headquarters location. "Immunity" is another potential remedy that we need to deal with the same way. Skipping forward to discussions of remedies is only slowing down our discussion of
problems
. I strongly suggest we refocus on
problems
, so that we can get to the discussion of remedies. Once we've agreed on a list of
problems
, a discussion of remedies will be more productive.
Our working method of dealing with
problems
first and then remedies may also help us find agreement on a way to deal with question 4. Questions 1-3 clearly deal with issues. Perhaps a version of question 4 that is limited to asking for
problems
will get broader support ("Alternative 1" on the attachment may fit this description.)
The following responses were received on the Accountability list:
Parminder:
Greg/ All
I think the Alternative 1, which you take as likely candidate for broader support, is fine. I list this formulation below:
What are the advantages or disadvantages, if any, relating to ICANN's jurisdiction*, particularly with regard to the actual operation of ICANN’s policies and accountability mechanisms? Please support your response with appropriate examples, references to specific laws, case studies, other studies, and analysis. In particular, please indicate if there are current or past instances that highlight such advantages or problems.
(* For these questions, “ICANN’s jurisdiction” refers to (a) ICANN being subject to U.S. and California law as a result of its incorporation and location in California, (b) ICANN being subject to the laws of any other country as a result of its location within or contacts with that country, or (c) any “choice of law” or venue provisions in agreements with ICANN.)
ENDS
Lets move on with it. We are spending too much time on framing a question.
Kavouss Arasteh:
Grec,
Tks again,
As I said I believe ,it is counter productive to discuss many alternative,
I could agree with formulation of Parminder
Regards
Kavouss
Sam Lanfranco:
Greg,
Thank you for presenting alternatives for reaching agreement on a Roadmap for Moving Forward to identify operational issues embedded in the overall “jurisdiction” issue. It is important to recognize that what is being proposed is the choice of roadmap for moving forward. Where this takes us will flow from the assembly of evidence, the application of analysis, and the resulting array of possible options for addressing jurisdiction base operational issues.
Sam Lanfranco