The suggested way forward seem fine but I would suggest modifying alternative 1 of question 4 by asking for just the "disadvantages" as I don't think there is need to ask for advantages since the goal of the question is to identify issues (okay problems - just playing around with words).

Regards 

PS: Can't remember if I have posting rights. Otherwise, kindly help forward to list.

Sent from my LG G4
Kindly excuse brevity and typos

On 30 Dec 2016 8:27 a.m., "Greg Shatan" <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:

REMINDER to READ this email and RESPOND, at least with regard to the questionnaire (see attachment).  I've slightly revised the email for clarity.

To try and focus this discussion, I'll provide a strawman for how to deal with the alternatives:

Preamble -- Use Alternative 1.

Question 1 -- Use Alternative 1.

Question 2 -- No change

Question 3 -- No change.

Question 4 -- Use Alternative 1.

Thank you for your responses.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, Dec 27, 2016 at 3:28 PM
Subject: Focus, Working Method and Revisions to Proposed Questions: RESPONSE REQUESTED [was: Jurisdiction Proposed Questions and Poll Results]
To: ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org

All,

I'm sending this to the Jurisdiction subgroup list, since this was initially send to a discussion thread on jurisdiction taking place on the CCWG list. 

Please respond here, rather than there.  Thank you.

Greg

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, Dec 27, 2016 at 2:56 AM
Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] RES: Jurisdiction Proposed Questions and Poll Results
To: "accountability-cross-community@icann.org" <accountability-cross-community@icann.org>

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.)

​Greg​

​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

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