Caption Notes-Recordings-Transcript links for Jurisdiction Meeting #35 - 14 June 2017
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) [cid:image001.png@01D2E5D5.73E41D50] Skype: brenda.brewer.icann Phone: 1-310-745-1107 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)
Hello, kindly find inline: On 15 Jun 2017 6:46 PM, "MSSI Secretariat" <mssi-secretariat@icann.org> wrote: *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. SO: Based on the statement above it seem to me that this was decided by the CCWG plenary and not necessarily by the jurisdiction subgroup. I did not attend the call but I want to assume the appropriate consensus process was followed in the decision making process. Nevermind that participation in WS2 so far has somewhat reduced hence some level of diversity may be lacking (ofcourse this is probably nobody's fault) That said, as much as I personally don't see any significant reason for a change of jurisdiction at this time, I also believe that we should be open to formally log any issues/concerns that has been identified in our final report especially if the "only" solution to resolving such issue falls within the category of what we have barred ourselves from discussing. We should recognise that those issues/concerns are there and hopefully in future another group or generation can take it up and find a workable solution to them (perhaps the issue would have resolved itself by then or there will be more compelling reason to take nuclear route). Regards - *Action Items:* - (none) *Requests:* - (none) _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Seun, As noted in Thomas's statement, no issues are foreclosed and all are available for discussion. I would be surprised if there issues that can *only* be resolved or mitigated in such manner. This narrowing of the Subgroup's focus clarifies that where we are considering recommendations to resolve issues, we need to focus on workable resolutions that will gain consensus in the group. I hope that everyone will join in that effort, even those who wanted no options foreclosed. Greg On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 3:57 PM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> wrote:
Hello, kindly find inline:
On 15 Jun 2017 6:46 PM, "MSSI Secretariat" <mssi-secretariat@icann.org> wrote:
*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.
SO: Based on the statement above it seem to me that this was decided by the CCWG plenary and not necessarily by the jurisdiction subgroup. I did not attend the call but I want to assume the appropriate consensus process was followed in the decision making process. Nevermind that participation in WS2 so far has somewhat reduced hence some level of diversity may be lacking (ofcourse this is probably nobody's fault)
That said, as much as I personally don't see any significant reason for a change of jurisdiction at this time, I also believe that we should be open to formally log any issues/concerns that has been identified in our final report especially if the "only" solution to resolving such issue falls within the category of what we have barred ourselves from discussing.
We should recognise that those issues/concerns are there and hopefully in future another group or generation can take it up and find a workable solution to them (perhaps the issue would have resolved itself by then or there will be more compelling reason to take nuclear route).
Regards
-
*Action Items:*
- (none)
*Requests:*
- (none)
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
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
Dear Greg, I'm afraid I'll have to challenge your suggestion that two full meetings were devoted to considering the terms of the decision supposedly arrived at in the very last minutes of yesterday's call. We moved from debating a proposal of yours to have a question you drafted submitted to the plenary, then past that question to a table where different approaches were gathered, and then to another table. At no point did we really consider the different approaches nor their substance, nor did you as rapporteur ensure that objections or support for the different approaches were tested and noted. Then, it was only in the very last minutes of yesterday's call that the formulation suggested by Thomas first appeared, who seemed to argue it was in line with Avri's suggestion in the previous meeting, and, because of that, that it would have garnered some support. Now, we all saw that the formulation does not reflect what Avri really said, so not even with a stretch of imagination it is accurate to affirm that the decision was arrived at after discussion. The expedite (not to say expedient) manner in which that proposal was presented and assumed to reflect consensus is quite worrying. In the interest of not having a "minority" statement that would later reveal to be a "majority" statement, I assume the best course of action would be to subject to the scrutiny of the Subgroup what was raised and supposedly decided during the last minutes of yesterday's call, in a transparent way, with clear deadlines for reactions, and only then validate any decision. Best, Thiago ________________________________ De: ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org [ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org] em nome de Greg Shatan [gregshatanipc@gmail.com] Enviado: quinta-feira, 15 de junho de 2017 18:27 Para: ws2-jurisdiction Assunto: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Fwd: [CCWG-ACCT] Caption Notes-Recordings-Transcript links for Jurisdiction Meeting #35 - 14 June 2017 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<mailto: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<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Cc: "ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org<mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org>" <ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org<mailto: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) [cid:image001.png@01D2E5D5.73E41D50] Skype: brenda.brewer.icann Phone: 1-310-745-1107<tel:(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<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Thiago, I would take issue with your retelling of recent history. But let's switch from procedure to substance for a change. Why do you think it is important to have the option for this Subgroup to recommend that ICANN be re-created in a different jurisdiction, or moved outside the United States, or be granted immunity from legal challenges by third parties? How would you want to use that power? What issue within our remit can only be solved by such drastic actions? Absent a compelling substantive reason to do so, and something beyond "we should keep our options open," dragging out this process further has no particular value, would just seem to distract from the work we would all like to get back to. I was once told that the worst epitaph a man could have is "He kept his options open." I think the same can be said for working groups. Greg On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 6:17 PM, Thiago Braz Jardim Oliveira < thiago.jardim@itamaraty.gov.br> wrote:
Dear Greg,
I'm afraid I'll have to challenge your suggestion that two full meetings were devoted to considering the terms of the decision supposedly arrived at in the very last minutes of yesterday's call. We moved from debating a proposal of yours to have a question you drafted submitted to the plenary, then past that question to a table where different approaches were gathered, and then to another table. At no point did we really consider the different approaches nor their substance, nor did you as rapporteur ensure that objections or support for the different approaches were tested and noted. Then, it was only in the very last minutes of yesterday's call that the formulation suggested by Thomas first appeared, who seemed to argue it was in line with Avri's suggestion in the previous meeting, and, because of that, that it would have garnered some support. Now, we all saw that the formulation does not reflect what Avri really said, so not even with a stretch of imagination it is accurate to affirm that the decision was arrived at after discussion. The expedite (not to say expedient) manner in which that proposal was presented and assumed to reflect consensus is quite worrying.
In the interest of not having a "minority" statement that would later reveal to be a "majority" statement, I assume the best course of action would be to subject to the scrutiny of the Subgroup what was raised and supposedly decided during the last minutes of yesterday's call, in a transparent way, with clear deadlines for reactions, and only then validate any decision.
Best,
Thiago
------------------------------ *De:* ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org [ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@ icann.org] em nome de Greg Shatan [gregshatanipc@gmail.com] *Enviado:* quinta-feira, 15 de junho de 2017 18:27 *Para:* ws2-jurisdiction *Assunto:* [Ws2-jurisdiction] Fwd: [CCWG-ACCT] Caption Notes-Recordings-Transcript links for Jurisdiction Meeting #35 - 14 June 2017
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
Dear Greg, Perhaps you should turn the question around and ask it yourself. Why do you think it's important to NOT have the option for this Subgroup to recommend that ICANN be either relocated or granted immunity? I'm genuinely interested in knowing your answer. You also asked "What issue within our remit can only be solved by such drastic actions". Well, have we finished identifying the issues? I don't think so. That's what others and I have been saying we should be doing. Foreclosing solutions before we can answer this question does not make sense to me, for some such issue can appear as the Subgroup does the work it should be doing. You even had to admit this, as your objection to my stance led you to ask "what issue requires which solution"... The distraction from the work we all would like to get done has come precisely from this insistence on ruling out (or ruling in) remedies, for God knows what reason, and this - nothing else - has prevented us from answering your own question "What issue within our remit can only be solved by such drastic actions". Really, what was preventing us from doing this? But let's not lose sight of where we are now, and perhaps how we got there, to make sure one's views are not portrayed as the group's. To illustrate this, people in the Subgroup from different constituencies are now concerned about this attempted decision to rule out, for example, immunities, which the subgroup has never really examined nor qualified as a "drastic action". Best, Thiago ________________________________ De: Greg Shatan [gregshatanipc@gmail.com] Enviado: quinta-feira, 15 de junho de 2017 19:40 Para: Thiago Braz Jardim Oliveira Cc: ws2-jurisdiction Assunto: Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Fwd: [CCWG-ACCT] Caption Notes-Recordings-Transcript links for Jurisdiction Meeting #35 - 14 June 2017 Thiago, I would take issue with your retelling of recent history. But let's switch from procedure to substance for a change. Why do you think it is important to have the option for this Subgroup to recommend that ICANN be re-created in a different jurisdiction, or moved outside the United States, or be granted immunity from legal challenges by third parties? How would you want to use that power? What issue within our remit can only be solved by such drastic actions? Absent a compelling substantive reason to do so, and something beyond "we should keep our options open," dragging out this process further has no particular value, would just seem to distract from the work we would all like to get back to. I was once told that the worst epitaph a man could have is "He kept his options open." I think the same can be said for working groups. Greg On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 6:17 PM, Thiago Braz Jardim Oliveira <thiago.jardim@itamaraty.gov.br<mailto:thiago.jardim@itamaraty.gov.br>> wrote: Dear Greg, I'm afraid I'll have to challenge your suggestion that two full meetings were devoted to considering the terms of the decision supposedly arrived at in the very last minutes of yesterday's call. We moved from debating a proposal of yours to have a question you drafted submitted to the plenary, then past that question to a table where different approaches were gathered, and then to another table. At no point did we really consider the different approaches nor their substance, nor did you as rapporteur ensure that objections or support for the different approaches were tested and noted. Then, it was only in the very last minutes of yesterday's call that the formulation suggested by Thomas first appeared, who seemed to argue it was in line with Avri's suggestion in the previous meeting, and, because of that, that it would have garnered some support. Now, we all saw that the formulation does not reflect what Avri really said, so not even with a stretch of imagination it is accurate to affirm that the decision was arrived at after discussion. The expedite (not to say expedient) manner in which that proposal was presented and assumed to reflect consensus is quite worrying. In the interest of not having a "minority" statement that would later reveal to be a "majority" statement, I assume the best course of action would be to subject to the scrutiny of the Subgroup what was raised and supposedly decided during the last minutes of yesterday's call, in a transparent way, with clear deadlines for reactions, and only then validate any decision. Best, Thiago ________________________________ De: ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org<mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org> [ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org<mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org>] em nome de Greg Shatan [gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>] Enviado: quinta-feira, 15 de junho de 2017 18:27 Para: ws2-jurisdiction Assunto: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Fwd: [CCWG-ACCT] Caption Notes-Recordings-Transcript links for Jurisdiction Meeting #35 - 14 June 2017 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<mailto: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<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Cc: "ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org<mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org>" <ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org<mailto: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) [cid:image001.png@01D2E5D5.73E41D50] Skype: brenda.brewer.icann Phone: 1-310-745-1107<tel:(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<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Thiago, You completely misunderstand my position. As rapporteur, I am expressing no opinion or position either way. Nor am I objecting to your position. My questions were intended to help others in the group understand more about your position. You stated that what you "would propose, if I may, would be to focus on these contentious issues, on the contentious issue, which is the place of incorporation." Since your position is not in fact procedural, but rather grounded in advancing the view that ICANN's place of incorporation is a "contentious issue," it seemed fair to help others to understand the root of your concerns. With regard to where we stand procedurally, please see my response to Seun. Best regards, Greg On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 7:22 PM, Thiago Braz Jardim Oliveira < thiago.jardim@itamaraty.gov.br> wrote:
Dear Greg,
Perhaps you should turn the question around and ask it yourself. Why do you think it's important to NOT have the option for this Subgroup to recommend that ICANN be either relocated or granted immunity? I'm genuinely interested in knowing your answer.
You also asked "What issue within our remit can only be solved by such drastic actions". Well, have we finished identifying the issues? I don't think so. That's what others and I have been saying we should be doing. Foreclosing solutions before we can answer this question does not make sense to me, for some such issue can appear as the Subgroup does the work it should be doing. You even had to admit this, as your objection to my stance led you to ask "what issue requires which solution"...
The distraction from the work we all would like to get done has come precisely from this insistence on ruling out (or ruling in) remedies, for God knows what reason, and this - nothing else - has prevented us from answering your own question "What issue within our remit can only be solved by such drastic actions". Really, what was preventing us from doing this?
But let's not lose sight of where we are now, and perhaps how we got there, to make sure one's views are not portrayed as the group's. To illustrate this, people in the Subgroup from different constituencies are now concerned about this attempted decision to rule out, for example, immunities, which the subgroup has never really examined nor qualified as a "drastic action".
Best,
Thiago
------------------------------ *De:* Greg Shatan [gregshatanipc@gmail.com] *Enviado:* quinta-feira, 15 de junho de 2017 19:40 *Para:* Thiago Braz Jardim Oliveira *Cc:* ws2-jurisdiction *Assunto:* Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Fwd: [CCWG-ACCT] Caption Notes-Recordings-Transcript links for Jurisdiction Meeting #35 - 14 June 2017
Thiago,
I would take issue with your retelling of recent history.
But let's switch from procedure to substance for a change. Why do you think it is important to have the option for this Subgroup to recommend that ICANN be re-created in a different jurisdiction, or moved outside the United States, or be granted immunity from legal challenges by third parties? How would you want to use that power? What issue within our remit can only be solved by such drastic actions?
Absent a compelling substantive reason to do so, and something beyond "we should keep our options open," dragging out this process further has no particular value, would just seem to distract from the work we would all like to get back to.
I was once told that the worst epitaph a man could have is "He kept his options open." I think the same can be said for working groups.
Greg
On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 6:17 PM, Thiago Braz Jardim Oliveira < thiago.jardim@itamaraty.gov.br> wrote:
Dear Greg,
I'm afraid I'll have to challenge your suggestion that two full meetings were devoted to considering the terms of the decision supposedly arrived at in the very last minutes of yesterday's call. We moved from debating a proposal of yours to have a question you drafted submitted to the plenary, then past that question to a table where different approaches were gathered, and then to another table. At no point did we really consider the different approaches nor their substance, nor did you as rapporteur ensure that objections or support for the different approaches were tested and noted. Then, it was only in the very last minutes of yesterday's call that the formulation suggested by Thomas first appeared, who seemed to argue it was in line with Avri's suggestion in the previous meeting, and, because of that, that it would have garnered some support. Now, we all saw that the formulation does not reflect what Avri really said, so not even with a stretch of imagination it is accurate to affirm that the decision was arrived at after discussion. The expedite (not to say expedient) manner in which that proposal was presented and assumed to reflect consensus is quite worrying.
In the interest of not having a "minority" statement that would later reveal to be a "majority" statement, I assume the best course of action would be to subject to the scrutiny of the Subgroup what was raised and supposedly decided during the last minutes of yesterday's call, in a transparent way, with clear deadlines for reactions, and only then validate any decision.
Best,
Thiago
------------------------------ *De:* ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org [ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@ican n.org] em nome de Greg Shatan [gregshatanipc@gmail.com] *Enviado:* quinta-feira, 15 de junho de 2017 18:27 *Para:* ws2-jurisdiction *Assunto:* [Ws2-jurisdiction] Fwd: [CCWG-ACCT] Caption Notes-Recordings-Transcript links for Jurisdiction Meeting #35 - 14 June 2017
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
Dear Greg, The contentious issue I was referring to was the impact of ICANN's place of incorporation on its ability to perform its functions, and I'm glad you allow me to make that clearer, even though I would suppose you'd have understood it from my other interventions. As for my views on what that issue is, a look at the e-mail I sent on 30 May would give you a sense of it: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ws2-jurisdiction/2017-May/001003.html I have no preconceived views, and was hoping to engage more in that very discussion to fully appreciate the problems, until I guess someone saw the need to ensure the group would not recommend certain solutions before we knew what the problems were. Best, Thiago ________________________________ De: Greg Shatan [gregshatanipc@gmail.com] Enviado: quinta-feira, 15 de junho de 2017 20:53 Para: Thiago Braz Jardim Oliveira Cc: ws2-jurisdiction Assunto: Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Fwd: [CCWG-ACCT] Caption Notes-Recordings-Transcript links for Jurisdiction Meeting #35 - 14 June 2017 Thiago, You completely misunderstand my position. As rapporteur, I am expressing no opinion or position either way. Nor am I objecting to your position. My questions were intended to help others in the group understand more about your position. You stated that what you "would propose, if I may, would be to focus on these contentious issues, on the contentious issue, which is the place of incorporation." Since your position is not in fact procedural, but rather grounded in advancing the view that ICANN's place of incorporation is a "contentious issue," it seemed fair to help others to understand the root of your concerns. With regard to where we stand procedurally, please see my response to Seun. Best regards, Greg On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 7:22 PM, Thiago Braz Jardim Oliveira <thiago.jardim@itamaraty.gov.br<mailto:thiago.jardim@itamaraty.gov.br>> wrote: Dear Greg, Perhaps you should turn the question around and ask it yourself. Why do you think it's important to NOT have the option for this Subgroup to recommend that ICANN be either relocated or granted immunity? I'm genuinely interested in knowing your answer. You also asked "What issue within our remit can only be solved by such drastic actions". Well, have we finished identifying the issues? I don't think so. That's what others and I have been saying we should be doing. Foreclosing solutions before we can answer this question does not make sense to me, for some such issue can appear as the Subgroup does the work it should be doing. You even had to admit this, as your objection to my stance led you to ask "what issue requires which solution"... The distraction from the work we all would like to get done has come precisely from this insistence on ruling out (or ruling in) remedies, for God knows what reason, and this - nothing else - has prevented us from answering your own question "What issue within our remit can only be solved by such drastic actions". Really, what was preventing us from doing this? But let's not lose sight of where we are now, and perhaps how we got there, to make sure one's views are not portrayed as the group's. To illustrate this, people in the Subgroup from different constituencies are now concerned about this attempted decision to rule out, for example, immunities, which the subgroup has never really examined nor qualified as a "drastic action". Best, Thiago ________________________________ De: Greg Shatan [gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>] Enviado: quinta-feira, 15 de junho de 2017 19:40 Para: Thiago Braz Jardim Oliveira Cc: ws2-jurisdiction Assunto: Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Fwd: [CCWG-ACCT] Caption Notes-Recordings-Transcript links for Jurisdiction Meeting #35 - 14 June 2017 Thiago, I would take issue with your retelling of recent history. But let's switch from procedure to substance for a change. Why do you think it is important to have the option for this Subgroup to recommend that ICANN be re-created in a different jurisdiction, or moved outside the United States, or be granted immunity from legal challenges by third parties? How would you want to use that power? What issue within our remit can only be solved by such drastic actions? Absent a compelling substantive reason to do so, and something beyond "we should keep our options open," dragging out this process further has no particular value, would just seem to distract from the work we would all like to get back to. I was once told that the worst epitaph a man could have is "He kept his options open." I think the same can be said for working groups. Greg On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 6:17 PM, Thiago Braz Jardim Oliveira <thiago.jardim@itamaraty.gov.br<mailto:thiago.jardim@itamaraty.gov.br>> wrote: Dear Greg, I'm afraid I'll have to challenge your suggestion that two full meetings were devoted to considering the terms of the decision supposedly arrived at in the very last minutes of yesterday's call. We moved from debating a proposal of yours to have a question you drafted submitted to the plenary, then past that question to a table where different approaches were gathered, and then to another table. At no point did we really consider the different approaches nor their substance, nor did you as rapporteur ensure that objections or support for the different approaches were tested and noted. Then, it was only in the very last minutes of yesterday's call that the formulation suggested by Thomas first appeared, who seemed to argue it was in line with Avri's suggestion in the previous meeting, and, because of that, that it would have garnered some support. Now, we all saw that the formulation does not reflect what Avri really said, so not even with a stretch of imagination it is accurate to affirm that the decision was arrived at after discussion. The expedite (not to say expedient) manner in which that proposal was presented and assumed to reflect consensus is quite worrying. In the interest of not having a "minority" statement that would later reveal to be a "majority" statement, I assume the best course of action would be to subject to the scrutiny of the Subgroup what was raised and supposedly decided during the last minutes of yesterday's call, in a transparent way, with clear deadlines for reactions, and only then validate any decision. Best, Thiago ________________________________ De: ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org<mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org> [ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org<mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org>] em nome de Greg Shatan [gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>] Enviado: quinta-feira, 15 de junho de 2017 18:27 Para: ws2-jurisdiction Assunto: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Fwd: [CCWG-ACCT] Caption Notes-Recordings-Transcript links for Jurisdiction Meeting #35 - 14 June 2017 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<mailto: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<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Cc: "ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org<mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org>" <ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org<mailto: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) [cid:image001.png@01D2E5D5.73E41D50] Skype: brenda.brewer.icann Phone: 1-310-745-1107<tel:(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<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
My dear Thiago While you may disagree with the decision reached, something I completely understand, you certainly do yourself no credit by impugning Greg's management of this subgroup. His tolerance and patience have been exemplary. Unlike you, I find the resolution we have reached 6 months too late, rather than too early. Paul Paul Rosenzweig <mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com O: +1 (202) 547-0660 M: +1 (202) 329-9650 VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 <http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/> www.redbranchconsulting.com My PGP Key: <https://keys.mailvelope.com/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x9A830097CA066684> https://keys.mailvelope.com/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x9A830097CA066684 From: ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Thiago Braz Jardim Oliveira Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2017 6:17 PM To: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com>; ws2-jurisdiction <ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> Subject: [Ws2-jurisdiction] RES: Fwd: [CCWG-ACCT] Caption Notes-Recordings-Transcript links for Jurisdiction Meeting #35 - 14 June 2017 Dear Greg, I'm afraid I'll have to challenge your suggestion that two full meetings were devoted to considering the terms of the decision supposedly arrived at in the very last minutes of yesterday's call. We moved from debating a proposal of yours to have a question you drafted submitted to the plenary, then past that question to a table where different approaches were gathered, and then to another table. At no point did we really consider the different approaches nor their substance, nor did you as rapporteur ensure that objections or support for the different approaches were tested and noted. Then, it was only in the very last minutes of yesterday's call that the formulation suggested by Thomas first appeared, who seemed to argue it was in line with Avri's suggestion in the previous meeting, and, because of that, that it would have garnered some support. Now, we all saw that the formulation does not reflect what Avri really said, so not even with a stretch of imagination it is accurate to affirm that the decision was arrived at after discussion. The expedite (not to say expedient) manner in which that proposal was presented and assumed to reflect consensus is quite worrying. In the interest of not having a "minority" statement that would later reveal to be a "majority" statement, I assume the best course of action would be to subject to the scrutiny of the Subgroup what was raised and supposedly decided during the last minutes of yesterday's call, in a transparent way, with clear deadlines for reactions, and only then validate any decision. Best, Thiago _____ De: ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org> [ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org] em nome de Greg Shatan [gregshatanipc@gmail.com] Enviado: quinta-feira, 15 de junho de 2017 18:27 Para: ws2-jurisdiction Assunto: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Fwd: [CCWG-ACCT] Caption Notes-Recordings-Transcript links for Jurisdiction Meeting #35 - 14 June 2017 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 <mailto: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 <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> > Cc: "ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> " <ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org <mailto: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 <tel:(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_0614I CANN1300UTC.RTF?version=1&modificationDate=1497462625000&api=v2> * PDF <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/66068505/Jurisdiction_0614 ICANN1300UTC.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1497462637000&api=v2> 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 <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Dear Paul, I did not know that you are representing Thomas Rocker, Greg Satan and the other people Kavouss Sent from my iPhone
On 18 Jun 2017, at 19:44, Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> wrote:
My dear Thiago
While you may disagree with the decision reached, something I completely understand, you certainly do yourself no credit by impugning Greg’s management of this subgroup. His tolerance and patience have been exemplary. Unlike you, I find the resolution we have reached 6 months too late, rather than too early.
Paul
Paul Rosenzweig paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com O: +1 (202) 547-0660 M: +1 (202) 329-9650 VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 www.redbranchconsulting.com My PGP Key: https://keys.mailvelope.com/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x9A830097CA066684
From: ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Thiago Braz Jardim Oliveira Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2017 6:17 PM To: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com>; ws2-jurisdiction <ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> Subject: [Ws2-jurisdiction] RES: Fwd: [CCWG-ACCT] Caption Notes-Recordings-Transcript links for Jurisdiction Meeting #35 - 14 June 2017
Dear Greg,
I'm afraid I'll have to challenge your suggestion that two full meetings were devoted to considering the terms of the decision supposedly arrived at in the very last minutes of yesterday's call. We moved from debating a proposal of yours to have a question you drafted submitted to the plenary, then past that question to a table where different approaches were gathered, and then to another table. At no point did we really consider the different approaches nor their substance, nor did you as rapporteur ensure that objections or support for the different approaches were tested and noted. Then, it was only in the very last minutes of yesterday's call that the formulation suggested by Thomas first appeared, who seemed to argue it was in line with Avri's suggestion in the previous meeting, and, because of that, that it would have garnered some support. Now, we all saw that the formulation does not reflect what Avri really said, so not even with a stretch of imagination it is accurate to affirm that the decision was arrived at after discussion. The expedite (not to say expedient) manner in which that proposal was presented and assumed to reflect consensus is quite worrying.
In the interest of not having a "minority" statement that would later reveal to be a "majority" statement, I assume the best course of action would be to subject to the scrutiny of the Subgroup what was raised and supposedly decided during the last minutes of yesterday's call, in a transparent way, with clear deadlines for reactions, and only then validate any decision.
Best,
Thiago
De: ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org [ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org] em nome de Greg Shatan [gregshatanipc@gmail.com] Enviado: quinta-feira, 15 de junho de 2017 18:27 Para: ws2-jurisdiction Assunto: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Fwd: [CCWG-ACCT] Caption Notes-Recordings-Transcript links for Jurisdiction Meeting #35 - 14 June 2017
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) <image001.png> Skype: brenda.brewer.icann Phone: 1-310-745-1107
Raw Captioning Notes Please note that these are the unofficial transcript. Official transcript will be posted 2-3 days after the call Word Doc PDF
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
Just representing myself Kavouss. No other individuals and no government. Take care, Paul -- Paul Rosenzweig Sent from myMail app for Android Sunday, 18 June 2017, 09:12PM -04:00 from Arasteh kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com :
Dear Paul, I did not know that you are representing Thomas Rocker, Greg Satan and the other people Kavouss
Sent from my iPhone
On 18 Jun 2017, at 19:44, Paul Rosenzweig < paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com > wrote:
My dear Thiago While you may disagree with the decision reached, something I completely understand, you certainly do yourself no credit by impugning Greg’s management of this subgroup. His tolerance and patience have been exemplary. Unlike you, I find the resolution we have reached 6 months too late, rather than too early. Paul Paul Rosenzweig paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com O: +1 (202) 547-0660 M: +1 (202) 329-9650 VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 www.redbranchconsulting.com My PGP Key: https://keys.mailvelope.com/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x9A830097CA066684 From: ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org [ mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org ] On Behalf Of Thiago Braz Jardim Oliveira Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2017 6:17 PM To: Greg Shatan < gregshatanipc@gmail.com >; ws2-jurisdiction < ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org > Subject: [Ws2-jurisdiction] RES: Fwd: [CCWG-ACCT] Caption Notes-Recordings-Transcript links for Jurisdiction Meeting #35 - 14 June 2017 Dear Greg, I'm afraid I'll have to challenge your suggestion that two full meetings were devoted to considering the terms of the decision supposedly arrived at in the very last minutes of yesterday's call. We moved from debating a proposal of yours to have a question you drafted submitted to the plenary, then past that question to a table where different approaches were gathered, and then to another table. At no point did we really consider the different approaches nor their substance, nor did you as rapporteur ensure that objections or support for the different approaches were tested and noted. Then, it was only in the very last minutes of yesterday's call that the formulation suggested by Thomas first appeared, who seemed to argue it was in line with Avri's suggestion in the previous meeting, and, because of that, that it would have garnered some support. Now, we all saw that the formulation does not reflect what Avri really said, so not even with a stretch of imagination it is accurate to affirm that the decision was arrived at after discussion. The expedite (not to say expedient) manner in which that proposal was presented and assumed to reflect consensus is quite worrying. In the interest of not having a "minority" statement that would later reveal to be a "majority" statement, I assume the best course of action would be to subject to the scrutiny of the Subgroup what was raised and supposedly decided during the last minutes of yesterday's call, in a transparent way, with clear deadlines for reactions, and only then validate any decision. Best, Thiago ---------------------------------------------------------------------- De: ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org [ ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org ] em nome de Greg Shatan [ gregshatanipc@gmail.com ] Enviado: quinta-feira, 15 de junho de 2017 18:27 Para: ws2-jurisdiction Assunto: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Fwd: [CCWG-ACCT] Caption Notes-Recordings-Transcript links for Jurisdiction Meeting #35 - 14 June 2017 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) <image001.png> Skype: brenda.brewer.icann Phone: 1-310-745-1107 Raw Captioning Notes Please note that these are the unofficial transcript. Official transcript will be posted 2-3 days after the call * Word Doc * PDF 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
Dear all, as in past opportunities, let me please invite you to take a time-out on this topic until we meet F2F. Sometime e-mail is cold and can escalate things to an unintended level. Let’s continue to appeal to the comradry, openness and civility that has characterized our group. As Thomas has stated, this issue will be addressed at our F2F meeting. Kind regards and safe travels to all, León
El 18/06/2017, a las 20:17, Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> escribió:
Just representing myself Kavouss. No other individuals and no government.
Take care, Paul
-- Paul Rosenzweig Sent from myMail app for Android
Sunday, 18 June 2017, 09:12PM -04:00 from Arasteh kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>:
Dear Paul, I did not know that you are representing Thomas Rocker, Greg Satan and the other people Kavouss
Sent from my iPhone
On 18 Jun 2017, at 19:44, Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com <mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com>> wrote:
My dear Thiago
While you may disagree with the decision reached, something I completely understand, you certainly do yourself no credit by impugning Greg’s management of this subgroup. His tolerance and patience have been exemplary. Unlike you, I find the resolution we have reached 6 months too late, rather than too early.
Paul
Paul Rosenzweig
paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com <mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> O: +1 (202) 547-0660
M: +1 (202) 329-9650
VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739
www.redbranchconsulting.com <http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/> My PGP Key: https://keys.mailvelope.com/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x9A830097CA066684 <https://keys.mailvelope.com/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x9A830097CA066684>
From: ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Thiago Braz Jardim Oliveira Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2017 6:17 PM To: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>>; ws2-jurisdiction <ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org>> Subject: [Ws2-jurisdiction] RES: Fwd: [CCWG-ACCT] Caption Notes-Recordings-Transcript links for Jurisdiction Meeting #35 - 14 June 2017
Dear Greg,
I'm afraid I'll have to challenge your suggestion that two full meetings were devoted to considering the terms of the decision supposedly arrived at in the very last minutes of yesterday's call. We moved from debating a proposal of yours to have a question you drafted submitted to the plenary, then past that question to a table where different approaches were gathered, and then to another table. At no point did we really consider the different approaches nor their substance, nor did you as rapporteur ensure that objections or support for the different approaches were tested and noted. Then, it was only in the very last minutes of yesterday's call that the formulation suggested by Thomas first appeared, who seemed to argue it was in line with Avri's suggestion in the previous meeting, and, because of that, that it would have garnered some support. Now, we all saw that the formulation does not reflect what Avri really said, so not even with a stretch of imagination it is accurate to affirm that the decision was arrived at after discussion. The expedite (not to say expedient) manner in which that proposal was presented and assumed to reflect consensus is quite worrying.
In the interest of not having a "minority" statement that would later reveal to be a "majority" statement, I assume the best course of action would be to subject to the scrutiny of the Subgroup what was raised and supposedly decided during the last minutes of yesterday's call, in a transparent way, with clear deadlines for reactions, and only then validate any decision.
Best,
Thiago
De: ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org> [ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org>] em nome de Greg Shatan [gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>] Enviado: quinta-feira, 15 de junho de 2017 18:27 Para: ws2-jurisdiction Assunto: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Fwd: [CCWG-ACCT] Caption Notes-Recordings-Transcript links for Jurisdiction Meeting #35 - 14 June 2017
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 <mailto: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 <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Cc: "ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org>" <ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org <mailto: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 <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)
<image001.png>
Skype: brenda.brewer.icann
Phone: 1-310-745-1107 <>
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 <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community>
_______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org <mailto:Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction>
Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
Dear Greg, I'm afraid I'll have to challenge your suggestion that two full meetings were devoted to considering the terms of the decision supposedly arrived at in the very last minutes of yesterday's call. We moved from debating a proposal of yours to have a question you drafted submitted to the plenary, then past that question to a table where different approaches were gathered, and then to another table. At no point did we really consider the different approaches nor their substance, nor did you as rapporteur ensure that objections or support for the different approaches were tested and noted. Then, it was only in the very last minutes of yesterday's call that the formulation suggested by Thomas first appeared, who seemed to argue it was in line with Avri's suggestion in the previous meeting, and, because of that, that it would have garnered some support. Now, we all saw that the formulation does not reflect what Avri really said, so not even with a stretch of imagination it is accurate to affirm that the decision was arrived at after discussion. The expedite (not to say expedient) manner in which that proposal was presented and assumed to reflect consensus is quite worrying. In the interest of not having a "minority" statement that would later reveal to be a "majority" statement, I assume the best course of action would be to subject to the scrutiny of the Subgroup what was raised and supposedly decided during the last minutes of yesterday's call, in a transparent way, with clear deadlines for reactions, and only then validate any decision. Best, Thiago ________________________________ De: ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org [ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org] em nome de Greg Shatan [gregshatanipc@gmail.com] Enviado: quinta-feira, 15 de junho de 2017 18:27 Para: ws2-jurisdiction Assunto: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Fwd: [CCWG-ACCT] Caption Notes-Recordings-Transcript links for Jurisdiction Meeting #35 - 14 June 2017 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<mailto: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<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Cc: "ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org<mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org>" <ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org<mailto: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) [cid:image001.png@01D2E5D5.73E41D50] Skype: brenda.brewer.icann Phone: 1-310-745-1107<tel:(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<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
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
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
Hello Greg, Thanks for your clarification so based on your explanation: 1. The co-chairs of the CCWG presented a personal decision of theirs and not of the plenary? I had thought co-chairs are supposed to observe discussion within the CCWG plenary and make their decision based on that. 2. The subgroup then supported the decision of the co-chairs (hopefully by consensus?). May I know if the subgroup decision making is only limited to those who attend meeting calls? I think it's important to consider the significance of the comments raised by the few members you indicated opposed as you and I know that just checking numbers for/against in this case will not do necessary justice to the matter at hand. 3. Saying that this will now be decided by the plenary after the co-chairs of the plenary already made a declaration/decision about the subject matter sounds like a procedural flaw to me. The plenary co-chairs have done extremely well in coordinating the CCWG since WS1 and I hope this will not be an exception. I will apply same comment to subgroup leads as well. Regards PS: my participation here remains as an end user affiliated to atlarge and NOT as any other hat that I may wear. On 16 Jun 2017 12:50 AM, "Greg Shatan" <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
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
I want to add two notes to this latest series of emails. First, in my opinion Greg has handled this matter fairly – singlehandedly helping navigate what is probably the most contentious issue in all of WS2. Being a rapporteur can at times be a thankless job – I note my thanks to Greg for his work in this subgroup. Second, this issue (HQ location) has been discussed a great deal since last summer. The positions have had a fair airing. And so I (1) continue to strongly support Thomas’s intervention in the last meeting, including a reminder about minority statements; (2) note that silence amidst a running commentary does not mean acquiescence or agreement; and (3) look forward to the plenary and moving on. Best regards, David David McAuley Sr International Policy & Business Development Manager Verisign Inc. 703-948-4154 From: ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Seun Ojedeji Sent: Friday, June 16, 2017 2:40 AM To: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> Cc: ws2-jurisdiction <ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Fwd: [CCWG-ACCT] Caption Notes-Recordings-Transcript links for Jurisdiction Meeting #35 - 14 June 2017 Hello Greg, Thanks for your clarification so based on your explanation: 1. The co-chairs of the CCWG presented a personal decision of theirs and not of the plenary? I had thought co-chairs are supposed to observe discussion within the CCWG plenary and make their decision based on that. 2. The subgroup then supported the decision of the co-chairs (hopefully by consensus?). May I know if the subgroup decision making is only limited to those who attend meeting calls? I think it's important to consider the significance of the comments raised by the few members you indicated opposed as you and I know that just checking numbers for/against in this case will not do necessary justice to the matter at hand. 3. Saying that this will now be decided by the plenary after the co-chairs of the plenary already made a declaration/decision about the subject matter sounds like a procedural flaw to me. The plenary co-chairs have done extremely well in coordinating the CCWG since WS1 and I hope this will not be an exception. I will apply same comment to subgroup leads as well. Regards PS: my participation here remains as an end user affiliated to atlarge and NOT as any other hat that I may wear. On 16 Jun 2017 12:50 AM, "Greg Shatan" <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> wrote: 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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Cc: "ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org<mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org>" <ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org<mailto: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<tel:(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<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community _______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org<mailto:Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
+1 -- Paul Rosenzweig Sent from myMail app for Android Friday, 16 June 2017, 09:41AM -04:00 from McAuley, David via Ws2-jurisdiction ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org :
I want to add two notes to this latest series of emails. First, in my opinion Greg has handled this matter fairly – singlehandedly helping navigate what is probably the most contentious issue in all of WS2. Being a rapporteur can at times be a thankless job – I note my thanks to Greg for his work in this subgroup. Second, this issue (HQ location) has been discussed a great deal since last summer. The positions have had a fair airing. And so I (1) continue to strongly support Thomas’s intervention in the last meeting, including a reminder about minority statements; (2) note that silence amidst a running commentary does not mean acquiescence or agreement; and (3) look forward to the plenary and moving on. Best regards, David David McAuley Sr International Policy & Business Development Manager Verisign Inc. 703-948-4154 From: ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Seun Ojedeji Sent: Friday, June 16, 2017 2:40 AM To: Greg Shatan < gregshatanipc@gmail.com > Cc: ws2-jurisdiction < ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org > Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Fwd: [CCWG-ACCT] Caption Notes-Recordings-Transcript links for Jurisdiction Meeting #35 - 14 June 2017 Hello Greg, Thanks for your clarification so based on your explanation: 1. The co-chairs of the CCWG presented a personal decision of theirs and not of the plenary? I had thought co-chairs are supposed to observe discussion within the CCWG plenary and make their decision based on that. 2. The subgroup then supported the decision of the co-chairs (hopefully by consensus?). May I know if the subgroup decision making is only limited to those who attend meeting calls? I think it's important to consider the significance of the comments raised by the few members you indicated opposed as you and I know that just checking numbers for/against in this case will not do necessary justice to the matter at hand. 3. Saying that this will now be decided by the plenary after the co-chairs of the plenary already made a declaration/decision about the subject matter sounds like a procedural flaw to me. The plenary co-chairs have done extremely well in coordinating the CCWG since WS1 and I hope this will not be an exception. I will apply same comment to subgroup leads as well. Regards PS: my participation here remains as an end user affiliated to atlarge and NOT as any other hat that I may wear. On 16 Jun 2017 12:50 AM, "Greg Shatan" < gregshatanipc@gmail.com > wrote:
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 Raw Captioning Notes Please note that these are the unofficial transcript. Official transcript will be posted 2-3 days after the call * Word Doc * PDF 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
Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
Seun, Thanks for your comments. With regard to your concerns about the co-chairs (all but #2), you should take those up with the co-chairs. It sounds like some things need to be clarified. The significance of the comments from those opposed to the decision can be weighed by the Plenary. While the Subgroup's support was at a sufficient level to be called consensus, such support of the Subgroup for the Co-Chairs' decision was welcome, but not necessary. Finally , not to speak for the Co-Chairs, but since the motivating factor here was to narrow our options by excluding alternatives that would not get consensus support, checking numbers is relevant. Best regards, Greg On Fri, Jun 16, 2017 at 2:39 AM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> wrote:
Hello Greg,
Thanks for your clarification so based on your explanation:
1. The co-chairs of the CCWG presented a personal decision of theirs and not of the plenary? I had thought co-chairs are supposed to observe discussion within the CCWG plenary and make their decision based on that.
2. The subgroup then supported the decision of the co-chairs (hopefully by consensus?). May I know if the subgroup decision making is only limited to those who attend meeting calls? I think it's important to consider the significance of the comments raised by the few members you indicated opposed as you and I know that just checking numbers for/against in this case will not do necessary justice to the matter at hand.
3. Saying that this will now be decided by the plenary after the co-chairs of the plenary already made a declaration/decision about the subject matter sounds like a procedural flaw to me.
The plenary co-chairs have done extremely well in coordinating the CCWG since WS1 and I hope this will not be an exception. I will apply same comment to subgroup leads as well.
Regards PS: my participation here remains as an end user affiliated to atlarge and NOT as any other hat that I may wear.
On 16 Jun 2017 12:50 AM, "Greg Shatan" <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
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
participants (8)
-
Arasteh -
Greg Shatan -
León Felipe Sánchez Ambía -
McAuley, David -
MSSI Secretariat -
Paul Rosenzweig -
Seun Ojedeji -
Thiago Braz Jardim Oliveira