Seun, Thank you for asking. Let me clarify for you and others where we are procedurally. Yes, issues relating to clarity on scope are ultimately to be determined by the CCWG plenary. As you note, Thomas was speaking for the co-Chairs, and as the co-chairs stated, after almost a year of deliberations in this group, they could not see the possibility of consensus on recommendations which included these elements. The decision presented by Thomas was a decision by the co-Chairs. It was good that bulk of the Subgroup supported the decision on the call, but it should not be viewed as a Subgroup action per se. As of the end of the call, the discussion and decision now goes to the Plenary. Unless the decision changes there, that ends the discussion within the CCWG. Greg On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 7:34 PM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> wrote:
Hello Greg,
In the summary sent by staff the decision extract starts with the following:
"Thomas Rickert for the CCWG-Accountability Co-Chairs, We have concluded that......."
Please can you clarify if this decision was made by the subgroup or by the CCWG plenary as well? As I am somewhat unclear who is declaring/making decisions on things here.
If am right, the subgroup makes recommendations to the plenary who then decides, it also seem to me that issues relating to clarity on scope should be better determined by the CCWG plenary.
Regards
On 15 Jun 2017 10:27 PM, "Greg Shatan" <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
Jurisdiction Subgroup Members,
As noted below, after two full meetings devoted to the topic, the Subgroup arrived at a decision (excerpted verbatim from the transcript in the email below). For convenience, here it is again:
We have concluded that the Jurisdiction sub-group will take California jurisdiction as a base line for all its recommendations, and that the sub-team not pursue recommendations to change ICANN's jurisdiction of incorporation, location of headquarters or seek immunity for ICANN. With this decision we are recognizing that there is no possibility that there would be consensus for an immunity based concept or a change of place of incorporation. As such I would establish in the minutes of this call that we focus on the solution that gets most traction. Recognizing that this does not eliminate, as I think Avri said during last week's call, that we can discuss all issues that might arise during the deliberations. But that we actually focus on the status quo being California law and place of incorporation. and work on solutions that are founded on this.
Opposition was noted from four participants on the call (including one who left before the end, but had made his position clear.
This decision will now be referred to the Plenary, consistent with CCWG procedures.
With this, I believe that it is imperative that we return to and focus on identifying potential issues, deciding whether these are in fact issues within our remit, discussing those issues and making recommendations for resolving those issues.
Greg
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: MSSI Secretariat <mssi-secretariat@icann.org> Date: Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 1:46 PM Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] Caption Notes-Recordings-Transcript links for Jurisdiction Meeting #35 - 14 June 2017 To: CCWG Accountability <accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Cc: "ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org" <ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org>
Hello all,
The caption notes, recordings and transcripts for CCWG Accountability WS2 Jurisdiction Subgroup Meeting #35– 14 June 2017 will be available here: https://community.icann.org/x/GSDwAw
A copy of the action items and raw caption notes may be found below.
With kind regards,
*Brenda Brewer,** Projects & Operations Assistant *
Multistakeholder Strategy & Strategic Initiatives (MSSI)
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
Skype: brenda.brewer.icann
Phone: 1-310-745-1107 <(310)%20745-1107>
*Raw Captioning Notes*
*Please note that these are the unofficial transcript. Official transcript will be posted 2-3 days after the call*
- Word Doc <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/66068505/Jurisdicton_0614IC...> - PDF <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/66068505/Jurisdiction_0614I...>
*Decisions:*
- Thomas Rickert for the CCWG-Accountability Co-Chairs, We have concluded that the Jurisdiction sub-group will take Californian jurisdiction as a base line for all its recommendations, and that the sub-team not pursue recommendations to change ICANN's jurisdiction of incorporation, location of headquarters or seek immunity for ICANN. With this decision we are recognizing that there is no possibility that there would be consensus for an immunity based concept or a change of place of incorporation. As such I would establish in the minutes of this call that we focus on the solution that gets most traction. Recognizing that this does not eliminate, as I think Avri said during last week's call, that we can discuss all issues that might arise during the deliberations. But that we actually focus on the status quo being Californian law and place of incorporation. and work on solutions that are founded on this.
*Action Items:*
- (none)
*Requests:*
- (none)
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
