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.
I am curious, however to know, the source in the Charter for your view?
. 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....
GregCheers!______________________________Best regards,GregOn Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 10:41 AM John Laprise <jlaprise@gmail.com> wrote:
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:
- The issue IS within the intended scope of the subgroup, and
- 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