mandate re ccTLD issues
Dear all, there has been quite some discussion about whether or not ccTLD delegations and redelegations (Nigel, I know it is technically not a relegation :-)) should be worked on as issues for the jurisdiction sub team. This is a particularly sensitive issue for different reasons. Not all ccTLD operators are part of the ccNSO and therefore ICANN, let alone our group,and we cannot establish rules for disputes that affect those ccTLDs. Further, when we worked on the “judiciary building block“ in our accountability system, we explicitly limited our work to issues not related to ccTLD (re)delegations. Therefore, we made it part of our recommendations that the ccNSO would develop a policy for this.. ccNSO representatives have made it abundantly clear that we must not step over this line and try to impose on them. We could check with the ccNSO leadership, but given the discussions at the time I strongly believe that the ccNSO’s support for WS1 recommendations was based on this very demarcation in our recommendations. In addition to that, one of our main principles for WS2 is not to undo work that has been done in WS1. Working on (re)delegation issues for ccTLDs would violate that rule. I hope this helps. Best, Thomas
Dear All Thomas Thank you for yr warning At some time frame you and other co-chairs mentioned that until the issue comes to CCWG Plenary you refrain intervening in the activities of sub groups . You have crossed that limit and for the second time intervening in this regard You intervened before on the activities of the Jurisdiction group when all of a sudden you stepped in and proposed a consensus aimed text to which few people including my self objected. However, should your comment was only as a participant to Jurisdiction group it is more than welcome but if it is in the capacity of co chair it contradict the policy of not intervening in the activities of any subgroup. I am sorry to be so straightforward Regards Kavouss Sent from my iPhone
On 6 Sep 2017, at 11:46, Thomas Rickert <thomas@rickert.net> wrote:
Dear all,
there has been quite some discussion about whether or not ccTLD delegations and redelegations (Nigel, I know it is technically not a relegation :-)) should be worked on as issues for the jurisdiction sub team.
This is a particularly sensitive issue for different reasons.
Not all ccTLD operators are part of the ccNSO and therefore ICANN, let alone our group,and we cannot establish rules for disputes that affect those ccTLDs.
Further, when we worked on the “judiciary building block“ in our accountability system, we explicitly limited our work to issues not related to ccTLD (re)delegations. Therefore, we made it part of our recommendations that the ccNSO would develop a policy for this..
ccNSO representatives have made it abundantly clear that we must not step over this line and try to impose on them. We could check with the ccNSO leadership, but given the discussions at the time I strongly believe that the ccNSO’s support for WS1 recommendations was based on this very demarcation in our recommendations.
In addition to that, one of our main principles for WS2 is not to undo work that has been done in WS1. Working on (re)delegation issues for ccTLDs would violate that rule.
I hope this helps.
Best,
Thomas
_______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
Kavouss Again, I admire your professional skill in the area of multinational negotiation. It's always a great rule-of-thumb that if there's nothing to object to in the substance of a communication, then one must attack the messenger, of course. But the fact is you are plain wrong here. And I see no need to make apology for being so straightforward. (I'm from the County of Lancaster which has much common culture withh the County of York). I welcome Thomas's intervention which is helpful in the extreme. I really don't care if Thomas sent his email in personal capacity, as a member of the subgroup, as CCWG co-chair or as Grand Poobah, First Lord of the Treasury, Lord Chief Justice, Commander-in-Chief, Lord High Admiral,Archbishop, Lord Mayor and Lord High Everything Else. It's the objective content of the message that counts for all here, and it's really helpful to see this reminder of the delicate balance here. Nigel On 06/09/17 08:41, Arasteh wrote:
Dear All Thomas Thank you for yr warning At some time frame you and other co-chairs mentioned that until the issue comes to CCWG Plenary you refrain intervening in the activities of sub groups . You have crossed that limit and for the second time intervening in this regard You intervened before on the activities of the Jurisdiction group when all of a sudden you stepped in and proposed a consensus aimed text to which few people including my self objected. However, should your comment was only as a participant to Jurisdiction group it is more than welcome but if it is in the capacity of co chair it contradict the policy of not intervening in the activities of any subgroup. I am sorry to be so straightforward Regards Kavouss
Sent from my iPhone
On 6 Sep 2017, at 11:46, Thomas Rickert <thomas@rickert.net <mailto:thomas@rickert.net>> wrote:
Dear all,
there has been quite some discussion about whether or not ccTLD delegations and redelegations (Nigel, I know it is technically not a relegation :-)) should be worked on as issues for the jurisdiction sub team.
This is a particularly sensitive issue for different reasons.
Not all ccTLD operators are part of the ccNSO and therefore ICANN, let alone our group,and we cannot establish rules for disputes that affect those ccTLDs.
Further, when we worked on the “judiciary building block“ in our accountability system, we explicitly limited our work to issues not related to ccTLD (re)delegations. Therefore, we made it part of our recommendations that the ccNSO would develop a policy for this..
ccNSO representatives have made it abundantly clear that we must not step over this line and try to impose on them. We could check with the ccNSO leadership, but given the discussions at the time I strongly believe that the ccNSO’s support for WS1 recommendations was based on this very demarcation in our recommendations.
In addition to that, one of our main principles for WS2 is not to undo work that has been done in WS1. Working on (re)delegation issues for ccTLDs would violate that rule.
I hope this helps.
Best,
Thomas
_______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org <mailto: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
Hello Kavouss, This is to confirm that the message I wrote was agreed with my fellow co-chairs. Kind regards, Thomas
Am 06.09.2017 um 09:41 schrieb Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>:
Dear All Thomas Thank you for yr warning At some time frame you and other co-chairs mentioned that until the issue comes to CCWG Plenary you refrain intervening in the activities of sub groups . You have crossed that limit and for the second time intervening in this regard You intervened before on the activities of the Jurisdiction group when all of a sudden you stepped in and proposed a consensus aimed text to which few people including my self objected. However, should your comment was only as a participant to Jurisdiction group it is more than welcome but if it is in the capacity of co chair it contradict the policy of not intervening in the activities of any subgroup. I am sorry to be so straightforward Regards Kavouss
Sent from my iPhone
On 6 Sep 2017, at 11:46, Thomas Rickert <thomas@rickert.net <mailto:thomas@rickert.net>> wrote:
Dear all,
there has been quite some discussion about whether or not ccTLD delegations and redelegations (Nigel, I know it is technically not a relegation :-)) should be worked on as issues for the jurisdiction sub team.
This is a particularly sensitive issue for different reasons.
Not all ccTLD operators are part of the ccNSO and therefore ICANN, let alone our group,and we cannot establish rules for disputes that affect those ccTLDs.
Further, when we worked on the “judiciary building block“ in our accountability system, we explicitly limited our work to issues not related to ccTLD (re)delegations. Therefore, we made it part of our recommendations that the ccNSO would develop a policy for this..
ccNSO representatives have made it abundantly clear that we must not step over this line and try to impose on them. We could check with the ccNSO leadership, but given the discussions at the time I strongly believe that the ccNSO’s support for WS1 recommendations was based on this very demarcation in our recommendations.
In addition to that, one of our main principles for WS2 is not to undo work that has been done in WS1. Working on (re)delegation issues for ccTLDs would violate that rule.
I hope this helps.
Best,
Thomas
_______________________________________________ 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>
Dear Thomas, Could you please explain why a << recommendation that ICANN obtain immunity from US jurisdiction in respect of its ccTLD management activities >> "steps over" whatever line there is related to ccNSO's prerogatives? I'm convinced it does not, and I think I have explained the reasons why (and how) that is so, as well as offered concrete proposals for a recommendation on this ccTLD issue that respects the prerogatives of the ccNSO (for example, see here: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ws2-jurisdiction/2017-August/001441.html and here: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ws2-jurisdiction/2017-August/001496.html ). It would be helpful if you could respond to the e-mails I linked above. Thank you. Best, Thiago -----Mensagem original----- De: ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org] Em nome de Thomas Rickert Enviada em: quarta-feira, 6 de setembro de 2017 04:17 Para: ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org Cc: Thomas Rickert Assunto: [Ws2-jurisdiction] mandate re ccTLD issues Dear all, there has been quite some discussion about whether or not ccTLD delegations and redelegations (Nigel, I know it is technically not a relegation :-)) should be worked on as issues for the jurisdiction sub team. This is a particularly sensitive issue for different reasons. Not all ccTLD operators are part of the ccNSO and therefore ICANN, let alone our group,and we cannot establish rules for disputes that affect those ccTLDs. Further, when we worked on the “judiciary building block“ in our accountability system, we explicitly limited our work to issues not related to ccTLD (re)delegations. Therefore, we made it part of our recommendations that the ccNSO would develop a policy for this.. ccNSO representatives have made it abundantly clear that we must not step over this line and try to impose on them. We could check with the ccNSO leadership, but given the discussions at the time I strongly believe that the ccNSO’s support for WS1 recommendations was based on this very demarcation in our recommendations. In addition to that, one of our main principles for WS2 is not to undo work that has been done in WS1. Working on (re)delegation issues for ccTLDs would violate that rule. I hope this helps. Best, Thomas
I'm sorry, Thomas but your reasoning is not valid. And I can't tell whether this is just posturing to signal your sensitivity to some ccTLD operators or whether it is meant to be taken seriously as an impediment to the group's work. But the jurisdictional issues related to ICANN's incorporation in the U.S. affect, or have the potential to affect, ccTLD delegations. Ergo, it is within our remit, full stop. In recommending solutions, we may choose to defer to the CCNSO, but that is a policy choice we make here, not a hard constraint. I certainly do believe that cc's themselves take most of the responsibility for devising a solution to any problems we identify, but that doesn't stop us from identifying problems.
-----Original Message----- From: ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction- bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Thiago Braz Jardim Oliveira Sent: Wednesday, September 6, 2017 2:53 PM To: 'Thomas Rickert' <thomas@rickert.net>; ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org Subject: [Ws2-jurisdiction] RES: mandate re ccTLD issues
Dear Thomas,
Could you please explain why a << recommendation that ICANN obtain immunity from US jurisdiction in respect of its ccTLD management activities
"steps over" whatever line there is related to ccNSO's prerogatives?
I'm convinced it does not, and I think I have explained the reasons why (and how) that is so, as well as offered concrete proposals for a recommendation on this ccTLD issue that respects the prerogatives of the ccNSO (for example, see here: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ws2-jurisdiction/2017- August/001441.html and here: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ws2- jurisdiction/2017-August/001496.html ).
It would be helpful if you could respond to the e-mails I linked above.
Thank you.
Best,
Thiago
-----Mensagem original----- De: ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction- bounces@icann.org] Em nome de Thomas Rickert Enviada em: quarta-feira, 6 de setembro de 2017 04:17 Para: ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org Cc: Thomas Rickert Assunto: [Ws2-jurisdiction] mandate re ccTLD issues
Dear all,
there has been quite some discussion about whether or not ccTLD delegations and redelegations (Nigel, I know it is technically not a relegation :-)) should be worked on as issues for the jurisdiction sub team.
This is a particularly sensitive issue for different reasons.
Not all ccTLD operators are part of the ccNSO and therefore ICANN, let alone our group,and we cannot establish rules for disputes that affect those ccTLDs.
Further, when we worked on the “judiciary building block“ in our accountability system, we explicitly limited our work to issues not related to ccTLD (re)delegations. Therefore, we made it part of our recommendations that the ccNSO would develop a policy for this..
ccNSO representatives have made it abundantly clear that we must not step over this line and try to impose on them. We could check with the ccNSO leadership, but given the discussions at the time I strongly believe that the ccNSO’s support for WS1 recommendations was based on this very demarcation in our recommendations.
In addition to that, one of our main principles for WS2 is not to undo work that has been done in WS1. Working on (re)delegation issues for ccTLDs would violate that rule.
I hope this helps.
Best,
Thomas
_______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
Hello Thiago and Milton, thanks for your comments. I will not try to defend the points I made, which are based on our WS1 report and previous discussions we had. You have different views on this and that is fine. The easiest way to shed light on this is to reach out to the ccNSO leadership and ask for clarification. I hope that is an acceptable way forward. Best Thomas
Am 06.09.2017 um 21:04 schrieb Mueller, Milton L <milton@gatech.edu>:
I'm sorry, Thomas but your reasoning is not valid. And I can't tell whether this is just posturing to signal your sensitivity to some ccTLD operators or whether it is meant to be taken seriously as an impediment to the group's work.
But the jurisdictional issues related to ICANN's incorporation in the U.S. affect, or have the potential to affect, ccTLD delegations. Ergo, it is within our remit, full stop.
In recommending solutions, we may choose to defer to the CCNSO, but that is a policy choice we make here, not a hard constraint. I certainly do believe that cc's themselves take most of the responsibility for devising a solution to any problems we identify, but that doesn't stop us from identifying problems.
-----Original Message----- From: ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction- bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Thiago Braz Jardim Oliveira Sent: Wednesday, September 6, 2017 2:53 PM To: 'Thomas Rickert' <thomas@rickert.net>; ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org Subject: [Ws2-jurisdiction] RES: mandate re ccTLD issues
Dear Thomas,
Could you please explain why a << recommendation that ICANN obtain immunity from US jurisdiction in respect of its ccTLD management activities
"steps over" whatever line there is related to ccNSO's prerogatives?
I'm convinced it does not, and I think I have explained the reasons why (and how) that is so, as well as offered concrete proposals for a recommendation on this ccTLD issue that respects the prerogatives of the ccNSO (for example, see here: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ws2-jurisdiction/2017- August/001441.html and here: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ws2- jurisdiction/2017-August/001496.html ).
It would be helpful if you could respond to the e-mails I linked above.
Thank you.
Best,
Thiago
-----Mensagem original----- De: ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction- bounces@icann.org] Em nome de Thomas Rickert Enviada em: quarta-feira, 6 de setembro de 2017 04:17 Para: ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org Cc: Thomas Rickert Assunto: [Ws2-jurisdiction] mandate re ccTLD issues
Dear all,
there has been quite some discussion about whether or not ccTLD delegations and redelegations (Nigel, I know it is technically not a relegation :-)) should be worked on as issues for the jurisdiction sub team.
This is a particularly sensitive issue for different reasons.
Not all ccTLD operators are part of the ccNSO and therefore ICANN, let alone our group,and we cannot establish rules for disputes that affect those ccTLDs.
Further, when we worked on the “judiciary building block“ in our accountability system, we explicitly limited our work to issues not related to ccTLD (re)delegations. Therefore, we made it part of our recommendations that the ccNSO would develop a policy for this..
ccNSO representatives have made it abundantly clear that we must not step over this line and try to impose on them. We could check with the ccNSO leadership, but given the discussions at the time I strongly believe that the ccNSO’s support for WS1 recommendations was based on this very demarcation in our recommendations.
In addition to that, one of our main principles for WS2 is not to undo work that has been done in WS1. Working on (re)delegation issues for ccTLDs would violate that rule.
I hope this helps.
Best,
Thomas
_______________________________________________ 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
Dear Thomas, Thanks 1.In that case you plainly and clearly intervened in the activities and working methods of sub group which you and your colleagues have at several occasions claimed that the Co Chairs should not and should refrained to intervene ,in the capacity of CO -Chairs in the working methods or activities of the sub groups .At several occasions I asked that the co- chairs need to provide advice to them and your answer to me was that " It is not the duty of the co-chair to intervene in the activities / working methods of any sub group . But did break this Rules two times. As I did mention in my previous message. 2. In regard to the substance of your message, as Milton clearly and rightly mentioned Qoute *"But the jurisdictional issues related to ICANN's incorporation in the U.S. affect, or have the potential to affect, ccTLD delegations. Ergo, it is within our remit, full stop"* *Regards* *Kavouss* On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 9:17 PM, Thomas Rickert <thomas@rickert.net> wrote:
Hello Thiago and Milton, thanks for your comments.
I will not try to defend the points I made, which are based on our WS1 report and previous discussions we had. You have different views on this and that is fine.
The easiest way to shed light on this is to reach out to the ccNSO leadership and ask for clarification.
I hope that is an acceptable way forward.
Best Thomas
Am 06.09.2017 um 21:04 schrieb Mueller, Milton L <milton@gatech.edu>:
I'm sorry, Thomas but your reasoning is not valid. And I can't tell whether this is just posturing to signal your sensitivity to some ccTLD operators or whether it is meant to be taken seriously as an impediment to the group's work.
But the jurisdictional issues related to ICANN's incorporation in the U.S. affect, or have the potential to affect, ccTLD delegations. Ergo, it is within our remit, full stop.
In recommending solutions, we may choose to defer to the CCNSO, but that is a policy choice we make here, not a hard constraint. I certainly do believe that cc's themselves take most of the responsibility for devising a solution to any problems we identify, but that doesn't stop us from identifying problems.
-----Original Message----- From: ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction- bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Thiago Braz Jardim Oliveira Sent: Wednesday, September 6, 2017 2:53 PM To: 'Thomas Rickert' <thomas@rickert.net>; ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org Subject: [Ws2-jurisdiction] RES: mandate re ccTLD issues
Dear Thomas,
Could you please explain why a << recommendation that ICANN obtain immunity from US jurisdiction in respect of its ccTLD management activities
"steps over" whatever line there is related to ccNSO's prerogatives?
I'm convinced it does not, and I think I have explained the reasons why (and how) that is so, as well as offered concrete proposals for a recommendation on this ccTLD issue that respects the prerogatives of the ccNSO (for example, see here: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ws2-jurisdiction/2017- August/001441.html and here: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ws2- jurisdiction/2017-August/001496.html ).
It would be helpful if you could respond to the e-mails I linked above.
Thank you.
Best,
Thiago
-----Mensagem original----- De: ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction- bounces@icann.org] Em nome de Thomas Rickert Enviada em: quarta-feira, 6 de setembro de 2017 04:17 Para: ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org Cc: Thomas Rickert Assunto: [Ws2-jurisdiction] mandate re ccTLD issues
Dear all,
there has been quite some discussion about whether or not ccTLD delegations and redelegations (Nigel, I know it is technically not a relegation :-)) should be worked on as issues for the jurisdiction sub team.
This is a particularly sensitive issue for different reasons.
Not all ccTLD operators are part of the ccNSO and therefore ICANN, let alone our group,and we cannot establish rules for disputes that affect those ccTLDs.
Further, when we worked on the “judiciary building block“ in our accountability system, we explicitly limited our work to issues not related to ccTLD (re)delegations. Therefore, we made it part of our recommendations that the ccNSO would develop a policy for this..
ccNSO representatives have made it abundantly clear that we must not step over this line and try to impose on them. We could check with the ccNSO leadership, but given the discussions at the time I strongly believe that the ccNSO’s support for WS1 recommendations was based on this very demarcation in our recommendations.
In addition to that, one of our main principles for WS2 is not to undo work that has been done in WS1. Working on (re)delegation issues for ccTLDs would violate that rule.
I hope this helps.
Best,
Thomas
_______________________________________________ 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
_______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
All, Let's not obscure the substance of the co-chairs' message in Thomas's email by getting pulled into a procedural thicket. The point the email raises -- the "mandate re ccTLD issues" is a significant point: "Whether or not ccTLD delegations and redelegations ... should be worked on as issues for the jurisdiction sub team." The co-chairs' reminder of how the question was answered regarding the overall work of the CCWG is critical. The remit of this or any subgroup can't be broader than that of the CCWG as a whole. I see that there is some disagreement with these conclusions. I will take up Thomas's suggestion and ask ccNSO leadership for clarification, sending them the relevant correspondence and issue statements. While others are free to discuss this in the meantime, I expect that the response from ccNSO leadership will bring us information that will help any further discussion of this point. How does this affect our work? First, we haven't decided that the three ccTLD-related proposals are, in fact, issues. Nor have we decided that these issues are likely to "result in recommendations that achieve consensus in the Subgroup" (as per our Path Forward), or even that they are within our remit. If these proposals aren't adopted as issues, for whatever reason, then the point raised by the co-chairs (among others) is moot for purposes of this Subgroup. Second, remember our principle that we need to consider issues separately from potential remedies. Don't decide against an issue because you don't like the proposed remedies; there may be other possible remedies. The opposite is true as well. (Of course, if we don't take up a proposed issue, opinions about suggested remedies for that issue are beside the point.) Finally, we should keep our on eye the work directly in front of us -- refining the "OFAC proposal" and working our way through the potential issues related to the lack of choice of law clauses in certain ICANN contracts. If we were to spend the next several weeks debating the Subgroup's mandate regarding ccTLD issues, we will have no recommendations and no report. (That said, I would be remiss if I let such a debate go on for several weeks....) That doesn't necessarily mean that discussion is closed. It means we have to be goal-oriented, and our goal is to bring our work together into a report in the next month or so, with recommendations that this group will support. Best regards, Greg P.S. To be clear, I see no procedural impediment to taking up this point. The procedural objection has been duly noted, as have the responses. On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 1:01 AM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Thomas,
Thanks
1.In that case you plainly and clearly intervened in the activities and working methods of sub group which you and your colleagues have at several occasions claimed that the Co Chairs should not and should refrained to intervene ,in the capacity of CO -Chairs in the working methods or activities of the sub groups .At several occasions I asked that the co- chairs need to provide advice to them and your answer to me was that " It is not the duty of the co-chair to intervene in the activities / working methods of any sub group . But did break this Rules two times. As I did mention in my previous message.
2. In regard to the substance of your message, as Milton clearly and rightly mentioned
Qoute
*"But the jurisdictional issues related to ICANN's incorporation in the U.S. affect, or have the potential to affect, ccTLD delegations. Ergo, it is within our remit, full stop"*
*Regards*
*Kavouss*
On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 9:17 PM, Thomas Rickert <thomas@rickert.net> wrote:
Hello Thiago and Milton, thanks for your comments.
I will not try to defend the points I made, which are based on our WS1 report and previous discussions we had. You have different views on this and that is fine.
The easiest way to shed light on this is to reach out to the ccNSO leadership and ask for clarification.
I hope that is an acceptable way forward.
Best Thomas
Am 06.09.2017 um 21:04 schrieb Mueller, Milton L <milton@gatech.edu>:
I'm sorry, Thomas but your reasoning is not valid. And I can't tell whether this is just posturing to signal your sensitivity to some ccTLD operators or whether it is meant to be taken seriously as an impediment to the group's work.
But the jurisdictional issues related to ICANN's incorporation in the U.S. affect, or have the potential to affect, ccTLD delegations. Ergo, it is within our remit, full stop.
In recommending solutions, we may choose to defer to the CCNSO, but that is a policy choice we make here, not a hard constraint. I certainly do believe that cc's themselves take most of the responsibility for devising a solution to any problems we identify, but that doesn't stop us from identifying problems.
-----Original Message----- From: ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction- bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Thiago Braz Jardim Oliveira Sent: Wednesday, September 6, 2017 2:53 PM To: 'Thomas Rickert' <thomas@rickert.net>; ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org Subject: [Ws2-jurisdiction] RES: mandate re ccTLD issues
Dear Thomas,
Could you please explain why a << recommendation that ICANN obtain immunity from US jurisdiction in respect of its ccTLD management activities
"steps over" whatever line there is related to ccNSO's prerogatives?
I'm convinced it does not, and I think I have explained the reasons why (and how) that is so, as well as offered concrete proposals for a recommendation on this ccTLD issue that respects the prerogatives of the ccNSO (for example, see here: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ws2-jurisdiction/2017- August/001441.html and here: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ws2- jurisdiction/2017-August/001496.html ).
It would be helpful if you could respond to the e-mails I linked above.
Thank you.
Best,
Thiago
-----Mensagem original----- De: ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction- bounces@icann.org] Em nome de Thomas Rickert Enviada em: quarta-feira, 6 de setembro de 2017 04:17 Para: ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org Cc: Thomas Rickert Assunto: [Ws2-jurisdiction] mandate re ccTLD issues
Dear all,
there has been quite some discussion about whether or not ccTLD delegations and redelegations (Nigel, I know it is technically not a relegation :-)) should be worked on as issues for the jurisdiction sub team.
This is a particularly sensitive issue for different reasons.
Not all ccTLD operators are part of the ccNSO and therefore ICANN, let alone our group,and we cannot establish rules for disputes that affect those ccTLDs.
Further, when we worked on the “judiciary building block“ in our accountability system, we explicitly limited our work to issues not related to ccTLD (re)delegations. Therefore, we made it part of our recommendations that the ccNSO would develop a policy for this..
ccNSO representatives have made it abundantly clear that we must not step over this line and try to impose on them. We could check with the ccNSO leadership, but given the discussions at the time I strongly believe that the ccNSO’s support for WS1 recommendations was based on this very demarcation in our recommendations.
In addition to that, one of our main principles for WS2 is not to undo work that has been done in WS1. Working on (re)delegation issues for ccTLDs would violate that rule.
I hope this helps.
Best,
Thomas
_______________________________________________ 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
_______________________________________________ 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
All, One amendment to my email above. I think it will be more efficient to address our ccNSO-related questions to the ccNSO participants in this Subgroup and the CCWG. They will have the background on both the CCWG discussions of ccTLD matters and the broader ccTLD context. If and when needed, they can turn to ccNSO leadership (noting that Nigel Roberts is a member of the ccNSO Council). Greg On Sun, Sep 10, 2017 at 12:55 AM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
All,
Let's not obscure the substance of the co-chairs' message in Thomas's email by getting pulled into a procedural thicket.
The point the email raises -- the "mandate re ccTLD issues" is a significant point: "Whether or not ccTLD delegations and redelegations ... should be worked on as issues for the jurisdiction sub team." The co-chairs' reminder of how the question was answered regarding the overall work of the CCWG is critical. The remit of this or any subgroup can't be broader than that of the CCWG as a whole.
I see that there is some disagreement with these conclusions. I will take up Thomas's suggestion and ask ccNSO leadership for clarification, sending them the relevant correspondence and issue statements. While others are free to discuss this in the meantime, I expect that the response from ccNSO leadership will bring us information that will help any further discussion of this point.
How does this affect our work?
First, we haven't decided that the three ccTLD-related proposals are, in fact, issues. Nor have we decided that these issues are likely to "result in recommendations that achieve consensus in the Subgroup" (as per our Path Forward), or even that they are within our remit. If these proposals aren't adopted as issues, for whatever reason, then the point raised by the co-chairs (among others) is moot for purposes of this Subgroup.
Second, remember our principle that we need to consider issues separately from potential remedies. Don't decide against an issue because you don't like the proposed remedies; there may be other possible remedies. The opposite is true as well. (Of course, if we don't take up a proposed issue, opinions about suggested remedies for that issue are beside the point.)
Finally, we should keep our on eye the work directly in front of us -- refining the "OFAC proposal" and working our way through the potential issues related to the lack of choice of law clauses in certain ICANN contracts. If we were to spend the next several weeks debating the Subgroup's mandate regarding ccTLD issues, we will have no recommendations and no report. (That said, I would be remiss if I let such a debate go on for several weeks....)
That doesn't necessarily mean that discussion is closed. It means we have to be goal-oriented, and our goal is to bring our work together into a report in the next month or so, with recommendations that this group will support.
Best regards,
Greg
P.S. To be clear, I see no procedural impediment to taking up this point. The procedural objection has been duly noted, as have the responses.
On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 1:01 AM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com
wrote:
Dear Thomas,
Thanks
1.In that case you plainly and clearly intervened in the activities and working methods of sub group which you and your colleagues have at several occasions claimed that the Co Chairs should not and should refrained to intervene ,in the capacity of CO -Chairs in the working methods or activities of the sub groups .At several occasions I asked that the co- chairs need to provide advice to them and your answer to me was that " It is not the duty of the co-chair to intervene in the activities / working methods of any sub group . But did break this Rules two times. As I did mention in my previous message.
2. In regard to the substance of your message, as Milton clearly and rightly mentioned
Qoute
*"But the jurisdictional issues related to ICANN's incorporation in the U.S. affect, or have the potential to affect, ccTLD delegations. Ergo, it is within our remit, full stop"*
*Regards*
*Kavouss*
On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 9:17 PM, Thomas Rickert <thomas@rickert.net> wrote:
Hello Thiago and Milton, thanks for your comments.
I will not try to defend the points I made, which are based on our WS1 report and previous discussions we had. You have different views on this and that is fine.
The easiest way to shed light on this is to reach out to the ccNSO leadership and ask for clarification.
I hope that is an acceptable way forward.
Best Thomas
Am 06.09.2017 um 21:04 schrieb Mueller, Milton L <milton@gatech.edu>:
I'm sorry, Thomas but your reasoning is not valid. And I can't tell whether this is just posturing to signal your sensitivity to some ccTLD operators or whether it is meant to be taken seriously as an impediment to the group's work.
But the jurisdictional issues related to ICANN's incorporation in the U.S. affect, or have the potential to affect, ccTLD delegations. Ergo, it is within our remit, full stop.
In recommending solutions, we may choose to defer to the CCNSO, but that is a policy choice we make here, not a hard constraint. I certainly do believe that cc's themselves take most of the responsibility for devising a solution to any problems we identify, but that doesn't stop us from identifying problems.
-----Original Message----- From: ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction- bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Thiago Braz Jardim Oliveira Sent: Wednesday, September 6, 2017 2:53 PM To: 'Thomas Rickert' <thomas@rickert.net>; ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org Subject: [Ws2-jurisdiction] RES: mandate re ccTLD issues
Dear Thomas,
Could you please explain why a << recommendation that ICANN obtain immunity from US jurisdiction in respect of its ccTLD management activities
> "steps over" whatever line there is related to ccNSO's prerogatives?
I'm convinced it does not, and I think I have explained the reasons why (and how) that is so, as well as offered concrete proposals for a recommendation on this ccTLD issue that respects the prerogatives of the ccNSO (for example, see here: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ws2-jurisdiction/2017- August/001441.html and here: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ws2- jurisdiction/2017-August/001496.html ).
It would be helpful if you could respond to the e-mails I linked above.
Thank you.
Best,
Thiago
-----Mensagem original----- De: ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction- bounces@icann.org] Em nome de Thomas Rickert Enviada em: quarta-feira, 6 de setembro de 2017 04:17 Para: ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org Cc: Thomas Rickert Assunto: [Ws2-jurisdiction] mandate re ccTLD issues
Dear all,
there has been quite some discussion about whether or not ccTLD delegations and redelegations (Nigel, I know it is technically not a relegation :-)) should be worked on as issues for the jurisdiction sub team.
This is a particularly sensitive issue for different reasons.
Not all ccTLD operators are part of the ccNSO and therefore ICANN, let alone our group,and we cannot establish rules for disputes that affect those ccTLDs.
Further, when we worked on the “judiciary building block“ in our accountability system, we explicitly limited our work to issues not related to ccTLD (re)delegations. Therefore, we made it part of our recommendations that the ccNSO would develop a policy for this..
ccNSO representatives have made it abundantly clear that we must not step over this line and try to impose on them. We could check with the ccNSO leadership, but given the discussions at the time I strongly believe that the ccNSO’s support for WS1 recommendations was based on this very demarcation in our recommendations.
In addition to that, one of our main principles for WS2 is not to undo work that has been done in WS1. Working on (re)delegation issues for ccTLDs would violate that rule.
I hope this helps.
Best,
Thomas
_______________________________________________ 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
_______________________________________________ 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
Thanks Greg, all Responding to your solicitation of views... I wanted to write and confirm my view on this area as an individual participant in the group - this is my view as a ccNSO-appointed participant, it is nothing to do with my role as a cochair of the CCWG. There is some unease in the ccNSO about this discussion as Nigel has indicated. There may be issues with jurisdiction that relate to ccTLD matters that this subgroup wishes to discuss, but as I noted before, any changes to the policy environment that affect ccTLDs - and I do mean "any" - can only occur through a ccNSO PDP. The most that the CCWG would have the scope and competence to do with any such recommendation would be to make it as a suggestion to the ccNSO to consider. Neither the Board nor any other party can require the ccNSO to conduct a PDP, and without such a PDP, no policy affecting ccTLD matters can be made. Happy to discuss if that's helpful. best, Jordan On 11 September 2017 at 04:23, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
All,
One amendment to my email above. I think it will be more efficient to address our ccNSO-related questions to the ccNSO participants in this Subgroup and the CCWG. They will have the background on both the CCWG discussions of ccTLD matters and the broader ccTLD context. If and when needed, they can turn to ccNSO leadership (noting that Nigel Roberts is a member of the ccNSO Council).
Greg
On Sun, Sep 10, 2017 at 12:55 AM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
All,
Let's not obscure the substance of the co-chairs' message in Thomas's email by getting pulled into a procedural thicket.
The point the email raises -- the "mandate re ccTLD issues" is a significant point: "Whether or not ccTLD delegations and redelegations ... should be worked on as issues for the jurisdiction sub team." The co-chairs' reminder of how the question was answered regarding the overall work of the CCWG is critical. The remit of this or any subgroup can't be broader than that of the CCWG as a whole.
I see that there is some disagreement with these conclusions. I will take up Thomas's suggestion and ask ccNSO leadership for clarification, sending them the relevant correspondence and issue statements. While others are free to discuss this in the meantime, I expect that the response from ccNSO leadership will bring us information that will help any further discussion of this point.
How does this affect our work?
First, we haven't decided that the three ccTLD-related proposals are, in fact, issues. Nor have we decided that these issues are likely to "result in recommendations that achieve consensus in the Subgroup" (as per our Path Forward), or even that they are within our remit. If these proposals aren't adopted as issues, for whatever reason, then the point raised by the co-chairs (among others) is moot for purposes of this Subgroup.
Second, remember our principle that we need to consider issues separately from potential remedies. Don't decide against an issue because you don't like the proposed remedies; there may be other possible remedies. The opposite is true as well. (Of course, if we don't take up a proposed issue, opinions about suggested remedies for that issue are beside the point.)
Finally, we should keep our on eye the work directly in front of us -- refining the "OFAC proposal" and working our way through the potential issues related to the lack of choice of law clauses in certain ICANN contracts. If we were to spend the next several weeks debating the Subgroup's mandate regarding ccTLD issues, we will have no recommendations and no report. (That said, I would be remiss if I let such a debate go on for several weeks....)
That doesn't necessarily mean that discussion is closed. It means we have to be goal-oriented, and our goal is to bring our work together into a report in the next month or so, with recommendations that this group will support.
Best regards,
Greg
P.S. To be clear, I see no procedural impediment to taking up this point. The procedural objection has been duly noted, as have the responses.
On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 1:01 AM, Kavouss Arasteh < kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Thomas,
Thanks
1.In that case you plainly and clearly intervened in the activities and working methods of sub group which you and your colleagues have at several occasions claimed that the Co Chairs should not and should refrained to intervene ,in the capacity of CO -Chairs in the working methods or activities of the sub groups .At several occasions I asked that the co- chairs need to provide advice to them and your answer to me was that " It is not the duty of the co-chair to intervene in the activities / working methods of any sub group . But did break this Rules two times. As I did mention in my previous message.
2. In regard to the substance of your message, as Milton clearly and rightly mentioned
Qoute
*"But the jurisdictional issues related to ICANN's incorporation in the U.S. affect, or have the potential to affect, ccTLD delegations. Ergo, it is within our remit, full stop"*
*Regards*
*Kavouss*
On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 9:17 PM, Thomas Rickert <thomas@rickert.net> wrote:
Hello Thiago and Milton, thanks for your comments.
I will not try to defend the points I made, which are based on our WS1 report and previous discussions we had. You have different views on this and that is fine.
The easiest way to shed light on this is to reach out to the ccNSO leadership and ask for clarification.
I hope that is an acceptable way forward.
Best Thomas
Am 06.09.2017 um 21:04 schrieb Mueller, Milton L <milton@gatech.edu>:
I'm sorry, Thomas but your reasoning is not valid. And I can't tell whether this is just posturing to signal your sensitivity to some ccTLD operators or whether it is meant to be taken seriously as an impediment to the group's work.
But the jurisdictional issues related to ICANN's incorporation in the U.S. affect, or have the potential to affect, ccTLD delegations. Ergo, it is within our remit, full stop.
In recommending solutions, we may choose to defer to the CCNSO, but that is a policy choice we make here, not a hard constraint. I certainly do believe that cc's themselves take most of the responsibility for devising a solution to any problems we identify, but that doesn't stop us from identifying problems.
-----Original Message----- From: ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction- bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Thiago Braz Jardim Oliveira Sent: Wednesday, September 6, 2017 2:53 PM To: 'Thomas Rickert' <thomas@rickert.net>; ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org Subject: [Ws2-jurisdiction] RES: mandate re ccTLD issues
Dear Thomas,
Could you please explain why a << recommendation that ICANN obtain immunity from US jurisdiction in respect of its ccTLD management activities >> "steps over" whatever line there is related to ccNSO's prerogatives?
I'm convinced it does not, and I think I have explained the reasons why (and how) that is so, as well as offered concrete proposals for a recommendation on this ccTLD issue that respects the prerogatives of the ccNSO (for example, see here: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ws2-jurisdiction/2017- August/001441.html and here: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ws2- jurisdiction/2017-August/001496.html ).
It would be helpful if you could respond to the e-mails I linked above.
Thank you.
Best,
Thiago
-----Mensagem original----- De: ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction- bounces@icann.org] Em nome de Thomas Rickert Enviada em: quarta-feira, 6 de setembro de 2017 04:17 Para: ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org Cc: Thomas Rickert Assunto: [Ws2-jurisdiction] mandate re ccTLD issues
Dear all,
there has been quite some discussion about whether or not ccTLD delegations and redelegations (Nigel, I know it is technically not a relegation :-)) should be worked on as issues for the jurisdiction sub team.
This is a particularly sensitive issue for different reasons.
Not all ccTLD operators are part of the ccNSO and therefore ICANN, let alone our group,and we cannot establish rules for disputes that affect those ccTLDs.
Further, when we worked on the “judiciary building block“ in our accountability system, we explicitly limited our work to issues not related to ccTLD (re)delegations. Therefore, we made it part of our recommendations that the ccNSO would develop a policy for this..
ccNSO representatives have made it abundantly clear that we must not step over this line and try to impose on them. We could check with the ccNSO leadership, but given the discussions at the time I strongly believe that the ccNSO’s support for WS1 recommendations was based on this very demarcation in our recommendations.
In addition to that, one of our main principles for WS2 is not to undo work that has been done in WS1. Working on (re)delegation issues for ccTLDs would violate that rule.
I hope this helps.
Best,
Thomas
_______________________________________________ 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
_______________________________________________ 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
_______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
-- *Jordan Carter* Chief Executive InternetNZ Office: +64 4 495 2118 <04-495%202118> | Mobile: +64 21 442 649 <021%20442%20649> | Skype: jordancarter Email: jordan@internetnz.net.nz <https://2017.nethui.nz/>
The most that the CCWG would have the scope and competence to do with any such recommendation would be to make it as a suggestion to the ccNSO to consider. Neither the Board nor any other party can require the ccNSO to conduct a PDP, and without such a PDP, no policy affecting ccTLD matters can be made. That’s fine. The same is true of the GNSO and the ASO for that matter. This subgroup identifies problems and recommends solutions. It’s up to others to develop policies to implement the solutions. Dr. Milton Mueller Professor, School of Public Policy Georgia Institute of Technology [IGP_logo_gold block_email sig]<http://www.internetgovernance.org/>
Dear Jordan I am not sure what type of PDP you suggest for unilateral decision of American court for delegation or transfer of .ir to third party . We wish to limit such type of order as well as the potential influence of US government or any other government to interfere with the ccTLD of any other country based on founded or non founded claims If neither ICANN not any other entity is authorised to intervene or interfere with ccTLD of any country or any geographic territory that equally applies to US government, US court and say other government and its court Fortunately New Zealand or U.K. ccTLD were not yet subject to such interference Pls kindly clarify your position . In other word are you supporting such interference or opposing to that Reply to Milton If you believe that the sub group should consult GNSO and Jordan and Nigel believe that the subgroup should consult ccNSO to address such disturbing unilateral influence of US government and its court and any other government and its court then we need to close the shop of Grec and stop all discussions Regards Kavouss Sent from my iPhone
On 15 Sep 2017, at 22:25, Mueller, Milton L <milton@gatech.edu> wrote:
The most that the CCWG would have the scope and competence to do with any such recommendation would be to make it as a suggestion to the ccNSO to consider. Neither the Board nor any other party can require the ccNSO to conduct a PDP, and without such a PDP, no policy affecting ccTLD matters can be made.
That’s fine. The same is true of the GNSO and the ASO for that matter. This subgroup identifies problems and recommends solutions. It’s up to others to develop policies to implement the solutions.
Dr. Milton Mueller Professor, School of Public Policy Georgia Institute of Technology
<image002.jpg> _______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
participants (8)
-
Arasteh -
Greg Shatan -
Jordan Carter -
Kavouss Arasteh
-
Mueller, Milton L -
Nigel Roberts -
Thiago Braz Jardim Oliveira -
Thomas Rickert