I don't believe I've given the impression that I speak for or on behalf of the Co-Chairs.  In any event, I'll confirm that I don't.  If I've seemingly done so in summarizing where things stand, it's basically extracted from what the Co-Chairs have had to say.  In any event, you'll have to ask the co-chairs those questions.  I thought that if you were relying on something in the Charter to come to your view, it would be helpful to know.  By your answer, it appears there's nothing in the Charter that supports your view, but you may also believe that nothing in the Charter supports the Co-Chairs' activities either.

The review of litigations is not an issue; rather, it's a task.  Some of the cases may raise perceived issues.  The questionnaire responses and various interventions by participants have also raised perceived issues.  An example is the suggestion that there are issues relating to OFAC and ICANN's accountability.  Another perceived issue is the concern that US courts may conduct choice of law analyses in a way that favors the adoption of US law as the "choice of law" over foreign laws that could apply.  I'm looking forward to seeing participants populate the "Proposed Issues List".

Hope that helps.

Greg


On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 3:40 PM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> wrote:
On 19 Jun 2017 8:15 PM, "Greg Shatan" <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:


On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 3:04 PM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> wrote:
On 19 Jun 2017 5:44 PM, "Greg Shatan" <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
Milton,

The CCWG Co-Chairs instead framed the issue around the question "what will get sufficient traction in the group" vs. subjects that will not get sufficient traction, and thus would not lead to a consensus recommendation. 

SO: The thing is, such framing should be happening at the plenary and if the Co-Chairs are doing that at subgroup level, it should be to gather feedback and not to make a conclusive decision.
​GS:  You'll need to take the Co-Chairs' activities up with the Co-Chairs. 

SO: I have done the needful and they have kindly and promptly responded, but you seem to keep speaking for/on behalf them hence I needed to follow-up.

I am curious, however to know, the source in the Charter for your view?​
 

SO: Am also curious on what charter source permits​ the Co-Chairs to make a decision as this within subgroup prior to engaging/consulting the plenary.



. I hope that everyone is interested in substantive debate, and I hope to see plenty of it in this group in the coming weeks.

SO: That's the thing Greg, what is substantive isn't same for everyone. Certainly not for all volunteers ;-)
​
GS: Seun, by "substantive," I only mean "relating to substance, relating to the underlying facts and issues before the Subgroup" (as opposed to procedural).  I should hope that what is substantive is the same for everyone, even if what is most significant is not the same for everyone....​
 

SO: Okay noted Sir, apologies for talking procedural but note that my talk was a response ;-). Irrespective, if I may ask, apart from the review of ligations stuff what are the issues before the subgroup?

Regards


​Greg​


Cheers!

Best regards,

Greg

On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 10:41 AM John Laprise <jlaprise@gmail.com> wrote:

+1

 

Best regards,

 

John Laprise, Ph.D.

Principal Consultant

 

http://www.linkedin.com/in/jplaprise/

 

 

 

From: ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mueller, Milton L
Sent: Monday, June 19, 2017 9:40 AM
To: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com>; ws2-jurisdiction <ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org>
Cc: acct-staff@icann.org
Subject: Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Question Presented

 

Please pardon my late intervention. We were presented with this question:

 

Question: Is considering or recommending changes to ICANN's status as a not-for-profit California corporation within the scope of the Subgroup?

 

Two things seem obvious to me:

  1. The issue IS within the intended scope of the subgroup, and
  1. There is overwhelming consensus AGAINST recommending changes to ICANN’s status as a nonprofit California public benefit corporation.

 

It seems to me that most of the debate is confusing issue #1 with issue #2. The entire discussion has not developed any real alternative, much less a clearly superior one, to California jurisdiction. The identified problems with US jurisdiction (mainly OFAC) can be addressed without moving ICANN’s place of incorporation. So let’s stop trying to dishonestly pre-empt resolution of the jurisdiction issue by ruling certain discussions “out of scope.”  Let’s resolve it honestly by developing and acknowledging consensus around the fact that other than the meaningless mirage of “international jurisdiction” there is no better framework within which to work than California law.

 

The debate about scope, in other words, is a diversion from the substantive issue, and I wish the chairs and the Americans in the subgroup would stop trying to pre-empt substantive debate with scope debate.

 

I will not be in Johannesburg so I hope people who agree with me can take this perspective into the f2f meeting.

 

Dr. Milton L. Mueller

Professor, School of Public Policy

Georgia Institute of Technology

 

 

 

 

From: ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Greg Shatan
Sent: Thursday, June 8, 2017 9:29 AM
To: ws2-jurisdiction <ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org>
Cc: acct-staff@icann.org
Subject: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Question Presented

 

Please see attached.


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