Hello Parminder, Are you suggesting that we don't ask for experience at all? How then do we validate a problem and fix it? The IANA Stewardship was an identified issue(so to speak) and the fix was the transition to an MS community. Besides it was a specific task assigned by the steward to ICANN. That said, re-reading Greg's proposed text of question 4 and based on your comment, I think the question may not cover instance where there is an existing document/legal construct that could hinder ICANN from performing it's role. So perhaps we can reword the first paragraph to the following: "Are you aware of any material, documented instance(s) where ICANN has been or will be unable to pursue the actual operation of its policies and accountability mechanisms because of ICANN’s jurisdiction? If so, please provide documentation, including specific examples and references to specific laws." Overall there has to be a proof that there is a problem before a fix can happen in this particular scenario. This is where "if it ain't broke don't fix it" really has to be upheld. Regards Sent from my LG G4 Kindly excuse brevity and typos On 10 Jan 2017 6:35 a.m., "parminder" <parminder@itforchange.net> wrote: On Tuesday 10 January 2017 05:21 AM, Greg Shatan wrote: Seeing some support for David McAuley's suggestion for Question 4 and some support for Alternative 1, I wonder if a combination of the two might be able to gain consensus support. Below (and attached in redline) is my suggested combination: Are you aware of any material, documented instance(s) where ICANN has been unable to pursue the actual operation of its policies and accountability mechanisms because of ICANN’s jurisdiction? If so, please provide documentation, including specific examples and references to specific laws. There has been no response to my query as to why such a condition of listing documented instances where ICANN has been unable to pursue its policies because of NTIA oversight was not applied before seeking and finalising exit from NTIA oversight. Neither documented proof of existing alternative accountability mechanism was sought. Presenting these conditions now simply amounts to obstructing a proper inquiry into all aspects of ICANN's jurisdiction, as was agreed. I dont agree to sending out Q1-3 in absence of Q4 because that is making a judgement on the mandate of this group, a judgement that I do not agree with. parminder Are you aware of and able to document the existence of an alternative jurisdiction where ICANN would not be so prevented from pursuing the actual operation of ICANN’s policies and accountability mechanisms? If so, please provide documentation, including specific examples, references to specific laws, case studies, other studies, and analysis. I look forward to discussion of this and the other alternatives regarding Question 4 on our call tomorrow, and before that, on this list. Greg On Mon, Jan 9, 2017 at 3:52 PM, MSSI Secretariat <mssi-secretariat@icann.org

wrote:

Hello all,

In reply to Paul Rosenzweig, the Jurisdiction meeting on Tuesday, 10 January is at 13:00 UTC.

With kind regards,

*Brenda Brewer, Projects & Operations Assistant *

Multistakeholder Strategy & Strategic Initiatives (MSSI)

Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)

*From: *<ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> *Date: *Monday, January 9, 2017 at 2:46 PM *To: *'Phil Corwin' <psc@vlaw-dc.com>, "'Mueller, Milton L'" < milton@gatech.edu> *Cc: *"ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org" <ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> *Subject: *Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Jurisdiction Questionnaire: RESPONSE REQUESTED

What time is the call tomorrow? I apologize, but I lost track of our scheduling decisions.

Paul

Paul Rosenzweig

paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com

O: +1 (202) 547-0660 <%28202%29%20547-0660>

M: +1 (202) 329-9650 <%28202%29%20329-9650>

VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 <%28202%29%20738-1739>

www.redbranchconsulting.com[redbranchconsulting.com] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.redbranchconsulting....>

My PGP Key: https://keys.mailvelope.com/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x9A830 097CA066684[keys.mailvelope.com] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__keys.mailvelope.com_pks...>

*From:* Phil Corwin [mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com] *Sent:* Monday, January 9, 2017 3:16 PM *To:* Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com>; 'Mueller, Milton L' <milton@gatech.edu> *Cc:* ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org *Subject:* RE: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Jurisdiction Questionnaire: RESPONSE REQUESTED

Whatever the WG’s decision, I certainly hope we can decide this with finality on tomorrow’s call. Because right now we are like a car spinning its tires and just sinking deeper into the mud. We have already spent far too much time on this questionnaire matter.

*Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal*

*Virtualaw LLC*

*1155 F Street, NW*

*Suite 1050*

*Washington, DC 20004*

*202-559-8597 <%28202%29%20559-8597>/Direct*

*202-559-8750 <%28202%29%20559-8750>/Fax*

*202-255-6172 <%28202%29%20255-6172>/Cell*

*Twitter: @VlawDC*

*"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey*

*From:* ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounc es@icann.org <ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Paul Rosenzweig *Sent:* Monday, January 09, 2017 3:02 PM *To:* 'Mueller, Milton L' *Cc:* ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Jurisdiction Questionnaire: RESPONSE REQUESTED

I gather, however, that some disagree and say “all now or none ever.” If that is my choice I choose none. If the idea of separation gains any traction, I’d be open to consideration but I fear it would not bet any better definition later and we would just be kicking the can down the road.

Paul

Paul Rosenzweig

paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com

O: +1 (202) 547-0660 <%28202%29%20547-0660>

M: +1 (202) 329-9650 <%28202%29%20329-9650>

VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 <%28202%29%20738-1739>

www.redbranchconsulting.com[redbranchconsulting.com] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.redbranchconsulting....>

My PGP Key: https://keys.mailvelope.com/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x9A830 097CA066684[keys.mailvelope.com] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__keys.mailvelope.com_pks...>

*From:* Mueller, Milton L [mailto:milton@gatech.edu <milton@gatech.edu>] *Sent:* Monday, January 9, 2017 2:28 PM *To:* Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> *Cc:* ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org *Subject:* RE: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Jurisdiction Questionnaire: RESPONSE REQUESTED

Paul

Others in the group feel strongly that question 4 should go out. Some feel so strongly that they are of the view that it is all or nothing. While I don’t agree with them and while I certainly don’t agree with the idea that saying “all or nothing” is respectful of other people, I am not going to try any longer to change their minds.

MM: Those who suggest that we should not send out a fact-finding missive at all because of Q4 also seem to be taking an “all or nothing approach” are they not?

The reasonable solution, as I have said before, is to separate Q4 from the others and work on it some more to make it take a form that is acceptable to a broader range of WG participants.

------------------------------

No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com[avg.com] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.avg.com_email-2Dsign...> Version: 2016.0.7996 / Virus Database: 4749/13706 - Release Date: 01/04/17

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

_______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing listWs2-jurisdiction@icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction _______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction