Parminder,

This treatment of the issue of changing headquarters or incorporation jurisdiction was discussed on the list and accepted at meeting 7 of the subgroup.  I agree that there is disagreement on how or even whether to address this topic, and whether it is in scope.  There are some in the group who believe that this topic should be definitively closed off and not revisited by the group.  There are others who wish to discuss it further.  Regardless, discussing the topic on general terms without any context was becoming circular and blocking the group from consideration of issues that we are clearly required to deal with.

This treatment is intended as a compromise, allowing us to move forward with work that is agreed to be within scope, while leaving room to revisit this issue later and in context. 

Let me clarify that there is a world of difference between "closing" a topic and "putting aside" a topic.  A closed topic is essentially decided and will not be revisited by the group (absent extraordinary circumstances).  A topic "put aside" is one that will not be discussed at the current time, but will be revisited by the group later on.  It is essential that we try to work in an orderly fashion, and addressing too many topics simultaneously results in a lack of progress on any of the topics.  Having spent some time on this topic and not being able to close it (in favor of any determination), the decision was made to put it aside in order to move forward on other topics.

Nonetheless, I have noted on the status report that you wish to be disassociated from this statement.

Best regards,

Greg

On Sun, Oct 30, 2016 at 11:35 AM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear All, I understood that some documents would be available  on Sunday at 13,00 hrs UTC.
Does that doc, is published ?
If yes ,could someone forward a copy to me pls.
Regards
Kavouss

2016-10-29 10:30 GMT+02:00 parminder <parminder@itforchange.net>:

Dear Chairs Greg and Vinay,

Thanks for the below.

For such an important document that goes out in the name of the sub group, one would expect to be given more time to comment and agree on than just 24 hours. i do not consider this process robust enough to say that this doc comes on the behalf of the group, and to make comments like 'the group has determined......". At least 2-3 days are needed to agree to such a document, to be able to call it a group's document. That would be the normal process in any elist based process.

I specifically disassociate myself from the following:

"After some initial discussions, the Subgroup determined that changing ICANN's headquarters or incorporation jurisdiction will not be further investigated at this time. However, if an issue is identified by the Subgroup during its work, and the Subgroup can’t find another solution to resolve this issue, we will revisit and examine this concept in the context of the identified issue."

1. I saw no process whereby it can be said the subgroup 'determined' in this manner. In all prior discussions the opinion on this point has been divided - whether this issue continues to be discussed or not..

2. There are many open issues on the table and so can this issue also remain. Why do we need to 'specifically' close or put aside an important issue, or possible solution? This to me appears to suggest a strong prejudice, to which I cannot be a party. I must mention here that while I consider the application of public law  (or as Greg says, in transcript of the online meeting, issues related to the power of the state) a central one here, I do not think that moving ICANN's jurisdiction is the only solution in this regard. However, to specifically put aside this issue does not make any sense to me other than to suggest a strong aversion to this possibility, something which I dont see the subgroup having arrived at anything that can remotely resemble a consensus.

I can understand people have different views here, but what I cannot understand is the desire to foreclose discussions on important issues.

Best regards, parminder



On Friday 28 October 2016 02:26 AM, Greg Shatan wrote:
All, 

Here is a link to the draft Status Update Google doc, for your changes and comments.  I need to review the requirements for this document and may make some changes as well, but I don't anticipate making significant changes to the text we discussed on today's call, beyond those in the document now.  

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ie4ysgSH97tMciUvAYfk86USOCoIdK6aMQ9QWS2GJik/edit?usp=sharing

The document will become stable at 16:00 UTC tomorrow (Friday, October 28), and will be sent to the CCWG staff in anticipation of next week's F2F.

A copy is also attached for those who have difficulty accessing Google Docs.

Thank you for your comments.

Best regards,

Greg


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


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