Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Jurisdiction Subgroup: The Path Forward
Hello Greg, If I recall correctly there was a call to log issues twice now. Can you provide the URL where the issues are documented for people to pick from OR are you suggesting to hit another reset and start logging issues again? Regards PS: I hope I will get a response this time as I don't get response from you including when I even write you privately to remind you of my question. Sent from my mobile Kindly excuse brevity and typos On Aug 12, 2017 12:13 AM, "Greg Shatan" <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote: Jurisdiction Subgroup Members, As explained by Staff at our last meeting on 9 August, we have until *11 October* to submit a draft set of recommendations to the Plenary for consideration as a first reading if any such recommendations are to be accepted by the Plenary, published for Public Consultation and included in the Final WS2 Report. In other words, we have about *8 weeks* to develop a draft set of recommendations and come to consensus on these. Obviously, given this time-frame, we have to accept that we will not be able to address all issues. In fact, the only realistic approach, if we want to deliver any recommendations, is to pick a handful of issues (2 to 4) on which we can all agree and for which we believe we can propose recommendations that will achieve consensus. I remain optimistic that we can do this if we can agree, meaning everyone will have to compromise, to select this limited number of issues over the next very few weeks and work diligently at meetings and on the list to develop recommendations for these. To reach this objective I would propose the following approach: - *Each participant should pick one issue which they believe is in scope for us and post that issue to the list prior to our meeting of 23 August. More specifically:* - *Issues should be very specific -- avoid open-ended, abstract or omnibus issues* - *Issue description should be succinct -- 12 standard lines maximum* - *Proposed solutions – if you have a possible solution or recommendation which should be considered, please include it (again, being succinct).* - *Put your issue in a new email (not a reply), with the subject ISSUE: [name of issue]* - *The sooner, the better* I look forward to discussing this proposal at our next meeting of *16 August* and I would encourage participants to comment on this proposal in response to this email prior to that meeting. Greg _______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
On Saturday 12 August 2017 11:37 AM, Seun Ojedeji wrote:
Hello Greg,
If I recall correctly there was a call to log issues twice now. Can you provide the URL where the issues are documented for people to pick from OR are you suggesting to hit another reset and start logging issues again?
Regards PS: I hope I will get a response this time as I don't get response from you including when I even write you privately to remind you of my question.
To add to this, I asked for the original issues doc twice, and quite pointedly the second time in a separate email, to which Jorge responded also asking for it, and reminding that he too had asked for it earlier once. This is the most extra-ordinary chair-ship of a working group that I have ever witnessed! Why dont we just get told what report we have to sign off on and close the matters. parminder
Sent from my mobile Kindly excuse brevity and typos
On Aug 12, 2017 12:13 AM, "Greg Shatan" <gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> wrote:
Jurisdiction Subgroup Members,
As explained by Staff at our last meeting on 9 August, we have until *11 October* to submit a draft set of recommendations to the Plenary for consideration as a first reading if any such recommendations are to be accepted by the Plenary, published for Public Consultation and included in the Final WS2 Report.
In other words, we have about *8 weeks* to develop a draft set of recommendations and come to consensus on these.
Obviously, given this time-frame, we have to accept that we will not be able to address all issues. In fact, the only realistic approach, if we want to deliver any recommendations, is to pick a handful of issues (2 to 4) on which we can all agree and for which we believe we can propose recommendations that will achieve consensus.
I remain optimistic that we can do this if we can agree, meaning everyone will have to compromise, to select this limited number of issues over the next very few weeks and work diligently at meetings and on the list to develop recommendations for these.
To reach this objective I would propose the following approach:
* *Each participant should pick _one_ issue which they believe is in scope for us and post that issue to the list prior to our meeting of 23 August. More specifically:* o *Issues should be very specific -- avoid open-ended, abstract or omnibus issues* o *Issue description should be succinct -- 12 standard lines maximum* o *Proposed solutions – if you have a possible solution or recommendation which should be considered, please include it (again, being succinct).* o *Put your issue in a new email (not a reply), with the subject ISSUE: [name of issue]* o *The sooner, the better*
I look forward to discussing this proposal at our next meeting of *16 August* and I would encourage participants to comment on this proposal in response to this email prior to that meeting.
Greg
_______________________________________________ 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
That way there'd be no opportunity for certain SOs/ACs to have their mind changed for them. To be fair, herding cats can't have been on the Bar exam. On 12/08/17 08:20, parminder wrote:
have ever witnessed! Why dont we just get told what report we have to sign off on and close the matters.
Here is the sheet with the documented issues: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1zAMj3Oz8TEqbjauOyqt09Ef-1ada9TrC7i60... It took me 10 seconds to find it. Here is the page where all the docs are displayed: https://community.icann.org/display/WEIA/Jurisdiction There is no need to contact the chair to find documents. You can contact ICANN staff for updated materials if you cannot find them on the WS2 page which I pasted above. I look forward to more substantive discussions on actual issues. Farzaneh On Sat, Aug 12, 2017 at 3:20 AM, parminder <parminder@itforchange.net> wrote:
On Saturday 12 August 2017 11:37 AM, Seun Ojedeji wrote:
Hello Greg,
If I recall correctly there was a call to log issues twice now. Can you provide the URL where the issues are documented for people to pick from OR are you suggesting to hit another reset and start logging issues again?
Regards PS: I hope I will get a response this time as I don't get response from you including when I even write you privately to remind you of my question.
To add to this, I asked for the original issues doc twice, and quite pointedly the second time in a separate email, to which Jorge responded also asking for it, and reminding that he too had asked for it earlier once.
This is the most extra-ordinary chair-ship of a working group that I have ever witnessed! Why dont we just get told what report we have to sign off on and close the matters.
parminder
Sent from my mobile Kindly excuse brevity and typos
On Aug 12, 2017 12:13 AM, "Greg Shatan" <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
Jurisdiction Subgroup Members,
As explained by Staff at our last meeting on 9 August, we have until *11 October* to submit a draft set of recommendations to the Plenary for consideration as a first reading if any such recommendations are to be accepted by the Plenary, published for Public Consultation and included in the Final WS2 Report.
In other words, we have about *8 weeks* to develop a draft set of recommendations and come to consensus on these.
Obviously, given this time-frame, we have to accept that we will not be able to address all issues. In fact, the only realistic approach, if we want to deliver any recommendations, is to pick a handful of issues (2 to 4) on which we can all agree and for which we believe we can propose recommendations that will achieve consensus.
I remain optimistic that we can do this if we can agree, meaning everyone will have to compromise, to select this limited number of issues over the next very few weeks and work diligently at meetings and on the list to develop recommendations for these.
To reach this objective I would propose the following approach:
- *Each participant should pick one issue which they believe is in scope for us and post that issue to the list prior to our meeting of 23 August. More specifically:* - *Issues should be very specific -- avoid open-ended, abstract or omnibus issues* - *Issue description should be succinct -- 12 standard lines maximum* - *Proposed solutions – if you have a possible solution or recommendation which should be considered, please include it (again, being succinct).* - *Put your issue in a new email (not a reply), with the subject ISSUE: [name of issue]* - *The sooner, the better*
I look forward to discussing this proposal at our next meeting of *16 August* and I would encourage participants to comment on this proposal in response to this email prior to that meeting.
Greg
_______________________________________________ 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
On Saturday 12 August 2017 01:24 PM, farzaneh badii wrote:
Here is the sheet with the documented issues: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1zAMj3Oz8TEqbjauOyqt09Ef-1ada9TrC7i60...
No, this is the new issues doc, prepared apparently by the Chair through an unclear process. We are looking for the old issues doc, which was a collective effort.
It took me 10 seconds to find it.
Here is the page where all the docs are displayed: https://community.icann.org/display/WEIA/Jurisdiction
Useful. That doc is at file:///home/param/Downloads/InfluenceofExistingJurisdictionsforDisputesonPolicyandAccountability%20(1).pdf
There is no need to contact the chair to find documents.
Apart from finding the right doc, there was also a question, which remains unanswered. Why and how was the collaborative document that we were working on containing issues of interest to the group abandoned, and a new one of unclear provenance issued? Who made this new document, following what process?
You can contact ICANN staff for updated materials if you cannot find them on the WS2 page which I pasted above.
I look forward to more substantive discussions on actual issues.
Sure, you want substantive discussions - these were the jurisdiction issues that I had posted a year ago on the linked collaborative doc -- somehow any substantive discussion refuses to take place on them. Can you/ others persuade me that there issues are fake, non issues, unimportant etc. I have given many arguments and facts over the year attesting to the importance of each of these, but happy to discuss again. a. A US court may find ICANN's actions, involving actual operation if its policies – like delegation of a gTLD, and/ or acceptance of certain terms of registry operation, to be in derogation of US law and instruct it to change its actions. b. Emergency, including war related, powers of the US state – existing, or that may be legislated in the future, like for instance that involves country's critical infrastructure – may get invoked with respect to ICANN's policies and functions in a manner that are detrimental to some other country (or countries). c. An US executive agency like OFAC may prohibit or limit engagement of ICANN with entities in specific countries. d. FCC which has regulatory jurisdiction over US's communication infrastructure may in future find some ICANN functions and/ or policies to be such that it would like to apply its regulatory powers over them in what it thinks is the interest of the US public. e. US customs, or such other enforcement agency may want to force ICANN to seize a private gTLD of a business that is located outside US which these agencies find as contravening US law, like its intellectual property laws. f. A sector regulator in the US, say in the area of health/ pharma, transportation, hotels, etc, may find issues with the registry agreement that ICANN allows to a registry that takes up key gTLD denoting these sectors, like .pharma, .car, .hotel and lays exclusion-inclusion and other principles for the gTLD, and it may force ICANN to either rescind or change the agreement, and conditions under it. (ends) parminder
Farzaneh
On Sat, Aug 12, 2017 at 3:20 AM, parminder <parminder@itforchange.net <mailto:parminder@itforchange.net>> wrote:
On Saturday 12 August 2017 11:37 AM, Seun Ojedeji wrote:
Hello Greg,
If I recall correctly there was a call to log issues twice now. Can you provide the URL where the issues are documented for people to pick from OR are you suggesting to hit another reset and start logging issues again?
Regards PS: I hope I will get a response this time as I don't get response from you including when I even write you privately to remind you of my question.
To add to this, I asked for the original issues doc twice, and quite pointedly the second time in a separate email, to which Jorge responded also asking for it, and reminding that he too had asked for it earlier once.
This is the most extra-ordinary chair-ship of a working group that I have ever witnessed! Why dont we just get told what report we have to sign off on and close the matters.
parminder
Sent from my mobile Kindly excuse brevity and typos
On Aug 12, 2017 12:13 AM, "Greg Shatan" <gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> wrote:
Jurisdiction Subgroup Members,
As explained by Staff at our last meeting on 9 August, we have until *11 October* to submit a draft set of recommendations to the Plenary for consideration as a first reading if any such recommendations are to be accepted by the Plenary, published for Public Consultation and included in the Final WS2 Report.
In other words, we have about *8 weeks* to develop a draft set of recommendations and come to consensus on these.
Obviously, given this time-frame, we have to accept that we will not be able to address all issues. In fact, the only realistic approach, if we want to deliver any recommendations, is to pick a handful of issues (2 to 4) on which we can all agree and for which we believe we can propose recommendations that will achieve consensus.
I remain optimistic that we can do this if we can agree, meaning everyone will have to compromise, to select this limited number of issues over the next very few weeks and work diligently at meetings and on the list to develop recommendations for these.
To reach this objective I would propose the following approach:
* *Each participant should pick _one_ issue which they believe is in scope for us and post that issue to the list prior to our meeting of 23 August. More specifically:* o *Issues should be very specific -- avoid open-ended, abstract or omnibus issues* o *Issue description should be succinct -- 12 standard lines maximum* o *Proposed solutions – if you have a possible solution or recommendation which should be considered, please include it (again, being succinct).* o *Put your issue in a new email (not a reply), with the subject ISSUE: [name of issue]* o *The sooner, the better*
I look forward to discussing this proposal at our next meeting of *16 August* and I would encourage participants to comment on this proposal in response to this email prior to that meeting.
Greg
_______________________________________________ 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 <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 <mailto:Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction>
On Saturday 12 August 2017 01:53 PM, parminder wrote:
On Saturday 12 August 2017 01:24 PM, farzaneh badii wrote:
Here is the sheet with the documented issues: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1zAMj3Oz8TEqbjauOyqt09Ef-1ada9TrC7i60...
No, this is the new issues doc, prepared apparently by the Chair through an unclear process. We are looking for the old issues doc, which was a collective effort.
It took me 10 seconds to find it.
Here is the page where all the docs are displayed: https://community.icann.org/display/WEIA/Jurisdiction
Useful. That doc is at file:///home/param/Downloads/InfluenceofExistingJurisdictionsforDisputesonPolicyandAccountability%20(1).pdf
sorry, here https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/59643282/InfluenceofExistin...
There is no need to contact the chair to find documents.
Apart from finding the right doc, there was also a question, which remains unanswered. Why and how was the collaborative document that we were working on containing issues of interest to the group abandoned, and a new one of unclear provenance issued? Who made this new document, following what process?
You can contact ICANN staff for updated materials if you cannot find them on the WS2 page which I pasted above.
I look forward to more substantive discussions on actual issues.
Sure, you want substantive discussions - these were the jurisdiction issues that I had posted a year ago on the linked collaborative doc -- somehow any substantive discussion refuses to take place on them. Can you/ others persuade me that there issues are fake, non issues, unimportant etc. I have given many arguments and facts over the year attesting to the importance of each of these, but happy to discuss again.
a. A US court may find ICANN's actions, involving actual operation if its policies – like delegation of a gTLD, and/ or acceptance of certain terms of registry operation, to be in derogation of US law and instruct it to change its actions.
b. Emergency, including war related, powers of the US state – existing, or that may be legislated in the future, like for instance that involves country's critical infrastructure – may get invoked with respect to ICANN's policies and functions in a manner that are detrimental to some other country (or countries).
c. An US executive agency like OFAC may prohibit or limit engagement of ICANN with entities in specific countries.
d. FCC which has regulatory jurisdiction over US's communication infrastructure may in future find some ICANN functions and/ or policies to be such that it would like to apply its regulatory powers over them in what it thinks is the interest of the US public.
e. US customs, or such other enforcement agency may want to force ICANN to seize a private gTLD of a business that is located outside US which these agencies find as contravening US law, like its intellectual property laws.
f. A sector regulator in the US, say in the area of health/ pharma, transportation, hotels, etc, may find issues with the registry agreement that ICANN allows to a registry that takes up key gTLD denoting these sectors, like .pharma, .car, .hotel and lays exclusion-inclusion and other principles for the gTLD, and it may force ICANN to either rescind or change the agreement, and conditions under it.
(ends)
parminder
Farzaneh
On Sat, Aug 12, 2017 at 3:20 AM, parminder <parminder@itforchange.net <mailto:parminder@itforchange.net>> wrote:
On Saturday 12 August 2017 11:37 AM, Seun Ojedeji wrote:
Hello Greg,
If I recall correctly there was a call to log issues twice now. Can you provide the URL where the issues are documented for people to pick from OR are you suggesting to hit another reset and start logging issues again?
Regards PS: I hope I will get a response this time as I don't get response from you including when I even write you privately to remind you of my question.
To add to this, I asked for the original issues doc twice, and quite pointedly the second time in a separate email, to which Jorge responded also asking for it, and reminding that he too had asked for it earlier once.
This is the most extra-ordinary chair-ship of a working group that I have ever witnessed! Why dont we just get told what report we have to sign off on and close the matters.
parminder
Sent from my mobile Kindly excuse brevity and typos
On Aug 12, 2017 12:13 AM, "Greg Shatan" <gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> wrote:
Jurisdiction Subgroup Members,
As explained by Staff at our last meeting on 9 August, we have until *11 October* to submit a draft set of recommendations to the Plenary for consideration as a first reading if any such recommendations are to be accepted by the Plenary, published for Public Consultation and included in the Final WS2 Report.
In other words, we have about *8 weeks* to develop a draft set of recommendations and come to consensus on these.
Obviously, given this time-frame, we have to accept that we will not be able to address all issues. In fact, the only realistic approach, if we want to deliver any recommendations, is to pick a handful of issues (2 to 4) on which we can all agree and for which we believe we can propose recommendations that will achieve consensus.
I remain optimistic that we can do this if we can agree, meaning everyone will have to compromise, to select this limited number of issues over the next very few weeks and work diligently at meetings and on the list to develop recommendations for these.
To reach this objective I would propose the following approach:
* *Each participant should pick _one_ issue which they believe is in scope for us and post that issue to the list prior to our meeting of 23 August. More specifically:* o *Issues should be very specific -- avoid open-ended, abstract or omnibus issues* o *Issue description should be succinct -- 12 standard lines maximum* o *Proposed solutions – if you have a possible solution or recommendation which should be considered, please include it (again, being succinct).* o *Put your issue in a new email (not a reply), with the subject ISSUE: [name of issue]* o *The sooner, the better*
I look forward to discussing this proposal at our next meeting of *16 August* and I would encourage participants to comment on this proposal in response to this email prior to that meeting.
Greg
_______________________________________________ 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 <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 <mailto:Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction>
Sent from my mobile Kindly excuse brevity and typos On Aug 12, 2017 8:55 AM, "farzaneh badii" <farzaneh.badii@gmail.com> wrote: Here is the sheet with the documented issues: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1zAMj3Oz8TEqbjauOyqt09Ef- 1ada9TrC7i60Mk-7al4/edit#gid=0 SO: Thanks and this is one of the issues gathering exercise that I recall had been done. So again my question to Greg still stand. Is he asking for new set of issues? If yes, does it mean the ones referenced above have all been addressed? If no, why can't the ones identified above be discussed and be done with. It took me 10 seconds to find it. SO: I guess that somewhat applies to Greg as well, especially as it's not clear what set of issues he is calling for when the outcome/decision/direction of the ones already listed has not been provided. I think it may have helped to read something in the line of ".... Having addressed all the issues raised, if there are any other issues let us know....." Here is the page where all the docs are displayed: https://community. icann.org/display/WEIA/Jurisdiction There is no need to contact the chair to find documents. SO: At times it's good to ask those questions in other to remind the Chair of the effort that has been made previously and to also get clarification. I look forward to more substantive discussions on actual issues. +1 and I thought some issues have already been documented and discussion should just be kicked off on them. Why call for issues again when the current ones are still pending? Or is it that I am way behind on this hence missing[1] something in Greg's mail. I'd like clarification if that were the case. Regards 1. That is possible as my participation in calls has been somewhat low due to recent lack of volunteer time but do follow mails and don't think I have seen anything suggesting previous issues raised have been brought to conclusion.(apologies if am wrong). Farzaneh On Sat, Aug 12, 2017 at 3:20 AM, parminder <parminder@itforchange.net> wrote:
On Saturday 12 August 2017 11:37 AM, Seun Ojedeji wrote:
Hello Greg,
If I recall correctly there was a call to log issues twice now. Can you provide the URL where the issues are documented for people to pick from OR are you suggesting to hit another reset and start logging issues again?
Regards PS: I hope I will get a response this time as I don't get response from you including when I even write you privately to remind you of my question.
To add to this, I asked for the original issues doc twice, and quite pointedly the second time in a separate email, to which Jorge responded also asking for it, and reminding that he too had asked for it earlier once.
This is the most extra-ordinary chair-ship of a working group that I have ever witnessed! Why dont we just get told what report we have to sign off on and close the matters.
parminder
Sent from my mobile Kindly excuse brevity and typos
On Aug 12, 2017 12:13 AM, "Greg Shatan" <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
Jurisdiction Subgroup Members,
As explained by Staff at our last meeting on 9 August, we have until *11 October* to submit a draft set of recommendations to the Plenary for consideration as a first reading if any such recommendations are to be accepted by the Plenary, published for Public Consultation and included in the Final WS2 Report.
In other words, we have about *8 weeks* to develop a draft set of recommendations and come to consensus on these.
Obviously, given this time-frame, we have to accept that we will not be able to address all issues. In fact, the only realistic approach, if we want to deliver any recommendations, is to pick a handful of issues (2 to 4) on which we can all agree and for which we believe we can propose recommendations that will achieve consensus.
I remain optimistic that we can do this if we can agree, meaning everyone will have to compromise, to select this limited number of issues over the next very few weeks and work diligently at meetings and on the list to develop recommendations for these.
To reach this objective I would propose the following approach:
- *Each participant should pick one issue which they believe is in scope for us and post that issue to the list prior to our meeting of 23 August. More specifically:* - *Issues should be very specific -- avoid open-ended, abstract or omnibus issues* - *Issue description should be succinct -- 12 standard lines maximum* - *Proposed solutions – if you have a possible solution or recommendation which should be considered, please include it (again, being succinct).* - *Put your issue in a new email (not a reply), with the subject ISSUE: [name of issue]* - *The sooner, the better*
I look forward to discussing this proposal at our next meeting of *16 August* and I would encourage participants to comment on this proposal in response to this email prior to that meeting.
Greg
_______________________________________________ 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
_______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
As far as I understand it, Greg is simply asking you to populate that google sheet with issues that you feel are relevant and before the 23rd post an explanatory statement to the list re an issue you find should figure in the final report. Yes there are issues still pending but the point now is to get everything on that doc so that we can close this call for issue at call of the 23rd. Parminder: this sheet has not been "prepared apparently by the Chair through an unclear process." Greg simply made the excel sheet outline and members of the subgroup have provided input. I don't see how this process is unclear. We have talked about the form and substance of this document in at least two calls which I were present, and I missed several recently so it's nothing very new. Why don't you put your list of issues in the doc if you believe they are important and do as Greg suggested? Best, 2017-08-12 10:29 GMT+02:00 Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com>:
Sent from my mobile Kindly excuse brevity and typos
On Aug 12, 2017 8:55 AM, "farzaneh badii" <farzaneh.badii@gmail.com> wrote:
Here is the sheet with the documented issues: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1zAMj3Oz8TEqbjauOyqt0 9Ef-1ada9TrC7i60Mk-7al4/edit#gid=0
SO: Thanks and this is one of the issues gathering exercise that I recall had been done. So again my question to Greg still stand. Is he asking for new set of issues? If yes, does it mean the ones referenced above have all been addressed? If no, why can't the ones identified above be discussed and be done with.
It took me 10 seconds to find it.
SO: I guess that somewhat applies to Greg as well, especially as it's not clear what set of issues he is calling for when the outcome/decision/direction of the ones already listed has not been provided.
I think it may have helped to read something in the line of ".... Having addressed all the issues raised, if there are any other issues let us know....."
Here is the page where all the docs are displayed: https://community.i cann.org/display/WEIA/Jurisdiction
There is no need to contact the chair to find documents.
SO: At times it's good to ask those questions in other to remind the Chair of the effort that has been made previously and to also get clarification.
I look forward to more substantive discussions on actual issues.
+1 and I thought some issues have already been documented and discussion should just be kicked off on them. Why call for issues again when the current ones are still pending? Or is it that I am way behind on this hence missing[1] something in Greg's mail. I'd like clarification if that were the case.
Regards 1. That is possible as my participation in calls has been somewhat low due to recent lack of volunteer time but do follow mails and don't think I have seen anything suggesting previous issues raised have been brought to conclusion.(apologies if am wrong).
Farzaneh
On Sat, Aug 12, 2017 at 3:20 AM, parminder <parminder@itforchange.net> wrote:
On Saturday 12 August 2017 11:37 AM, Seun Ojedeji wrote:
Hello Greg,
If I recall correctly there was a call to log issues twice now. Can you provide the URL where the issues are documented for people to pick from OR are you suggesting to hit another reset and start logging issues again?
Regards PS: I hope I will get a response this time as I don't get response from you including when I even write you privately to remind you of my question.
To add to this, I asked for the original issues doc twice, and quite pointedly the second time in a separate email, to which Jorge responded also asking for it, and reminding that he too had asked for it earlier once.
This is the most extra-ordinary chair-ship of a working group that I have ever witnessed! Why dont we just get told what report we have to sign off on and close the matters.
parminder
Sent from my mobile Kindly excuse brevity and typos
On Aug 12, 2017 12:13 AM, "Greg Shatan" <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
Jurisdiction Subgroup Members,
As explained by Staff at our last meeting on 9 August, we have until *11 October* to submit a draft set of recommendations to the Plenary for consideration as a first reading if any such recommendations are to be accepted by the Plenary, published for Public Consultation and included in the Final WS2 Report.
In other words, we have about *8 weeks* to develop a draft set of recommendations and come to consensus on these.
Obviously, given this time-frame, we have to accept that we will not be able to address all issues. In fact, the only realistic approach, if we want to deliver any recommendations, is to pick a handful of issues (2 to 4) on which we can all agree and for which we believe we can propose recommendations that will achieve consensus.
I remain optimistic that we can do this if we can agree, meaning everyone will have to compromise, to select this limited number of issues over the next very few weeks and work diligently at meetings and on the list to develop recommendations for these.
To reach this objective I would propose the following approach:
- *Each participant should pick one issue which they believe is in scope for us and post that issue to the list prior to our meeting of 23 August. More specifically:* - *Issues should be very specific -- avoid open-ended, abstract or omnibus issues* - *Issue description should be succinct -- 12 standard lines maximum* - *Proposed solutions – if you have a possible solution or recommendation which should be considered, please include it (again, being succinct).* - *Put your issue in a new email (not a reply), with the subject ISSUE: [name of issue]* - *The sooner, the better*
I look forward to discussing this proposal at our next meeting of *16 August* and I would encourage participants to comment on this proposal in response to this email prior to that meeting.
Greg
_______________________________________________ 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
_______________________________________________ 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
-- Raphaël Beauregard-Lacroix Sciences Po Law School 2014-2017 LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rapha%C3%ABl-beauregard-lacroix-88733786/> - @rbl0012 <https://twitter.com/rbl0112> - M: +33 7 86 39 18 15
thanks raphael two things one, not everyone can be on the calls, half of them happening past midnight for me, and such things should be made clear on this elist which I have not seen made clear. Plus, if specific questions are asked, and repeatedly, they need to be answered... two, when there is an existing document on issues, how can a new one be created without any clear continuity or process ... p On Saturday 12 August 2017 03:18 PM, Raphaël BEAUREGARD-LACROIX wrote:
As far as I understand it, Greg is simply asking you to populate that google sheet with issues that you feel are relevant and before the 23rd post an explanatory statement to the list re an issue you find should figure in the final report.
Yes there are issues still pending but the point now is to get everything on that doc so that we can close this call for issue at call of the 23rd.
Parminder: this sheet has not been "prepared apparently by the Chair through an unclear process." Greg simply made the excel sheet outline and members of the subgroup have provided input. I don't see how this process is unclear. We have talked about the form and substance of this document in at least two calls which I were present, and I missed several recently so it's nothing very new.
Why don't you put your list of issues in the doc if you believe they are important and do as Greg suggested?
Best,
2017-08-12 10:29 GMT+02:00 Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com <mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com>>:
Sent from my mobile Kindly excuse brevity and typos
On Aug 12, 2017 8:55 AM, "farzaneh badii" <farzaneh.badii@gmail.com <mailto:farzaneh.badii@gmail.com>> wrote:
Here is the sheet with the documented issues: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1zAMj3Oz8TEqbjauOyqt09Ef-1ada9TrC7i60... <https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1zAMj3Oz8TEqbjauOyqt09Ef-1ada9TrC7i60...>
SO: Thanks and this is one of the issues gathering exercise that I recall had been done. So again my question to Greg still stand. Is he asking for new set of issues? If yes, does it mean the ones referenced above have all been addressed? If no, why can't the ones identified above be discussed and be done with.
It took me 10 seconds to find it.
SO: I guess that somewhat applies to Greg as well, especially as it's not clear what set of issues he is calling for when the outcome/decision/direction of the ones already listed has not been provided.
I think it may have helped to read something in the line of ".... Having addressed all the issues raised, if there are any other issues let us know....."
Here is the page where all the docs are displayed: https://community.icann.org/display/WEIA/Jurisdiction <https://community.icann.org/display/WEIA/Jurisdiction>
There is no need to contact the chair to find documents.
SO: At times it's good to ask those questions in other to remind the Chair of the effort that has been made previously and to also get clarification.
I look forward to more substantive discussions on actual issues.
+1 and I thought some issues have already been documented and discussion should just be kicked off on them. Why call for issues again when the current ones are still pending? Or is it that I am way behind on this hence missing[1] something in Greg's mail. I'd like clarification if that were the case.
Regards 1. That is possible as my participation in calls has been somewhat low due to recent lack of volunteer time but do follow mails and don't think I have seen anything suggesting previous issues raised have been brought to conclusion.(apologies if am wrong).
Farzaneh
On Sat, Aug 12, 2017 at 3:20 AM, parminder <parminder@itforchange.net <mailto:parminder@itforchange.net>> wrote:
On Saturday 12 August 2017 11:37 AM, Seun Ojedeji wrote:
Hello Greg,
If I recall correctly there was a call to log issues twice now. Can you provide the URL where the issues are documented for people to pick from OR are you suggesting to hit another reset and start logging issues again?
Regards PS: I hope I will get a response this time as I don't get response from you including when I even write you privately to remind you of my question.
To add to this, I asked for the original issues doc twice, and quite pointedly the second time in a separate email, to which Jorge responded also asking for it, and reminding that he too had asked for it earlier once.
This is the most extra-ordinary chair-ship of a working group that I have ever witnessed! Why dont we just get told what report we have to sign off on and close the matters.
parminder
Sent from my mobile Kindly excuse brevity and typos
On Aug 12, 2017 12:13 AM, "Greg Shatan" <gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> wrote:
Jurisdiction Subgroup Members,
As explained by Staff at our last meeting on 9 August, we have until *11 October* to submit a draft set of recommendations to the Plenary for consideration as a first reading if any such recommendations are to be accepted by the Plenary, published for Public Consultation and included in the Final WS2 Report.
In other words, we have about *8 weeks* to develop a draft set of recommendations and come to consensus on these.
Obviously, given this time-frame, we have to accept that we will not be able to address all issues. In fact, the only realistic approach, if we want to deliver any recommendations, is to pick a handful of issues (2 to 4) on which we can all agree and for which we believe we can propose recommendations that will achieve consensus.
I remain optimistic that we can do this if we can agree, meaning everyone will have to compromise, to select this limited number of issues over the next very few weeks and work diligently at meetings and on the list to develop recommendations for these.
To reach this objective I would propose the following approach:
* *Each participant should pick _one_ issue which they believe is in scope for us and post that issue to the list prior to our meeting of 23 August. More specifically:* o *Issues should be very specific -- avoid open-ended, abstract or omnibus issues* o *Issue description should be succinct -- 12 standard lines maximum* o *Proposed solutions – if you have a possible solution or recommendation which should be considered, please include it (again, being succinct).* o *Put your issue in a new email (not a reply), with the subject ISSUE: [name of issue]* o *The sooner, the better*
I look forward to discussing this proposal at our next meeting of *16 August* and I would encourage participants to comment on this proposal in response to this email prior to that meeting.
Greg
_______________________________________________ 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 <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 <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 <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 <mailto:Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction>
-- Raphaël Beauregard-Lacroix Sciences Po Law School 2014-2017 LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rapha%C3%ABl-beauregard-lacroix-88733786/> - @rbl0012 <https://twitter.com/rbl0112> - M: +33 7 86 39 18 15
_______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
participants (5)
-
farzaneh badii -
Nigel Roberts -
parminder -
Raphaël BEAUREGARD-LACROIX -
Seun Ojedeji