REMINDER: Focus, Working Method and Revisions to Proposed Questions: RESPONSE REQUESTED [was: Jurisdiction Proposed Questions and Poll Results]
REMINDER to READ this email and RESPOND, at least with regard to the questionnaire (see attachment). I've slightly revised the email for clarity. To try and focus this discussion, I'll provide a strawman for how to deal with the alternatives: Preamble -- Use Alternative 1. Question 1 -- Use Alternative 1. Question 2 -- No change Question 3 -- No change. Question 4 -- Use Alternative 1. Thank you for your responses. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> Date: Tue, Dec 27, 2016 at 3:28 PM Subject: Focus, Working Method and Revisions to Proposed Questions: RESPONSE REQUESTED [was: Jurisdiction Proposed Questions and Poll Results] To: ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org All, I'm sending this to the Jurisdiction subgroup list, since this was initially send to a discussion thread on jurisdiction taking place on the CCWG list. *Please respond here, rather than there. Thank you.* Greg ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> Date: Tue, Dec 27, 2016 at 2:56 AM Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] RES: Jurisdiction Proposed Questions and Poll Results To: "accountability-cross-community@icann.org" <accountability-cross- community@icann.org> All: Two quick but important points: 1. We have strayed from the basic topic in front of us, which is to decide on the formulation of the questions to be sent out. * I have gone through the emails and meeting notes and pulled the alternative formulations and revisions in to a single document, attached to this email. * With regard to question 4, I believe that the best way to move forward is to see if one of the alternatives gets stronger support within the CCWG. If we can get to a point where there is broad support for the question without significant opposition that may resolve issues relating to whether and when this question will be sent out. 2. Our overall agreed-upon working method is to first identify, discuss and arrive at a list of problems , and then move on to identifying, discussing and arriving at a list of potential remedies for each problem on our list. We are still working on problems . For a remedy to be up for discussion when we move to discussing remedies, that remedy needs to provide a solution to a problem . We can't discuss a potential remedy without having a problem it is intended to solve. If there is a potential "remedy" but it does not solve any of our problems , we won't discuss it. We've already put aside one potential "remedy" until we see whether we identify any problems it would solve -- the "remedy" of changing ICANN's jurisdiction of incorporation or headquarters location. "Immunity" is another potential remedy that we need to deal with the same way. Skipping forward to discussions of remedies is only slowing down our discussion of problems . I strongly suggest we refocus on problems , so that we can get to the discussion of remedies. Once we've agreed on a list of problems , a discussion of remedies will be more productive. Our working method of dealing with problems first and then remedies may also help us find agreement on a way to deal with question 4. Questions 1-3 clearly deal with issues. Perhaps a version of question 4 that is limited to asking for problems will get broader support ("Alternative 1" on the attachment may fit this description.) Greg *The following responses were received on the Accountability list*: *Parminder*: Greg/ All I think the Alternative 1, which you take as likely candidate for broader support, is fine. I list this formulation below: What are the advantages or disadvantages, if any, relating to ICANN's jurisdiction*, particularly with regard to the actual operation of ICANN’s policies and accountability mechanisms? Please support your response with appropriate examples, references to specific laws, case studies, other studies, and analysis. In particular, please indicate if there are current or past instances that highlight such advantages or problems. (* For these questions, “ICANN’s jurisdiction” refers to (a) ICANN being subject to U.S. and California law as a result of its incorporation and location in California, (b) ICANN being subject to the laws of any other country as a result of its location within or contacts with that country, or (c) any “choice of law” or venue provisions in agreements with ICANN.) ENDS Lets move on with it. We are spending too much time on framing a question. *Kavouss Arasteh: * Grec, Tks again, As I said I believe ,it is counter productive to discuss many alternative, I could agree with formulation of Parminder Regards Kavouss *Sam Lanfranco:* Greg, Thank you for presenting alternatives for reaching agreement on a* Roadmap for Moving Forward to identify operational issues embedded in the overall “jurisdiction” issue*. It is important to recognize that what is being proposed is the choice of roadmap for moving forward. Where this takes us will flow from the assembly of evidence, the application of analysis, and the resulting array of possible options for addressing jurisdiction base operational issues. Sam Lanfranco
The suggested way forward seem fine but I would suggest modifying alternative 1 of question 4 by asking for just the "disadvantages" as I don't think there is need to ask for advantages since the goal of the question is to identify issues (okay problems - just playing around with words). Regards PS: Can't remember if I have posting rights. Otherwise, kindly help forward to list. Sent from my LG G4 Kindly excuse brevity and typos On 30 Dec 2016 8:27 a.m., "Greg Shatan" <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
REMINDER to READ this email and RESPOND, at least with regard to the questionnaire (see attachment). I've slightly revised the email for clarity.
To try and focus this discussion, I'll provide a strawman for how to deal with the alternatives:
Preamble -- Use Alternative 1. Question 1 -- Use Alternative 1. Question 2 -- No change Question 3 -- No change. Question 4 -- Use Alternative 1.
Thank you for your responses.
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> Date: Tue, Dec 27, 2016 at 3:28 PM Subject: Focus, Working Method and Revisions to Proposed Questions: RESPONSE REQUESTED [was: Jurisdiction Proposed Questions and Poll Results] To: ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org
All,
I'm sending this to the Jurisdiction subgroup list, since this was initially send to a discussion thread on jurisdiction taking place on the CCWG list.
*Please respond here, rather than there. Thank you.*
Greg
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> Date: Tue, Dec 27, 2016 at 2:56 AM Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] RES: Jurisdiction Proposed Questions and Poll Results To: "accountability-cross-community@icann.org" < accountability-cross-community@icann.org>
All:
Two quick but important points:
1. We have strayed from the basic topic in front of us, which is to decide on the formulation of the questions to be sent out. * I have gone through the emails and meeting notes and pulled the alternative formulations and revisions in to a single document, attached to this email. *
With regard to question 4, I believe that the best way to move forward is to see if one of the alternatives gets stronger support within the CCWG. If we can get to a point where there is broad support for the question without significant opposition that may resolve issues relating to whether and when this question will be sent out.
2. Our overall agreed-upon working method is to first identify, discuss and arrive at a list of problems , and then move on to identifying, discussing and arriving at a list of potential remedies for each problem on our list. We are still working on problems . For a remedy to be up for discussion when we move to discussing remedies, that remedy needs to provide a solution to a problem . We can't discuss a potential remedy without having a problem it is intended to solve. If there is a potential "remedy" but it does not solve any of our problems , we won't discuss it.
We've already put aside one potential "remedy" until we see whether we identify any problems it would solve -- the "remedy" of changing ICANN's jurisdiction of incorporation or headquarters location. "Immunity" is another potential remedy that we need to deal with the same way. Skipping forward to discussions of remedies is only slowing down our discussion of problems . I strongly suggest we refocus on problems , so that we can get to the discussion of remedies. Once we've agreed on a list of problems , a discussion of remedies will be more productive.
Our working method of dealing with problems first and then remedies may also help us find agreement on a way to deal with question 4. Questions 1-3 clearly deal with issues. Perhaps a version of question 4 that is limited to asking for problems will get broader support ("Alternative 1" on the attachment may fit this description.)
Greg
*The following responses were received on the Accountability list*:
*Parminder*: Greg/ All
I think the Alternative 1, which you take as likely candidate for broader support, is fine. I list this formulation below:
What are the advantages or disadvantages, if any, relating to ICANN's jurisdiction*, particularly with regard to the actual operation of ICANN’s policies and accountability mechanisms? Please support your response with appropriate examples, references to specific laws, case studies, other studies, and analysis. In particular, please indicate if there are current or past instances that highlight such advantages or problems.
(* For these questions, “ICANN’s jurisdiction” refers to (a) ICANN being subject to U.S. and California law as a result of its incorporation and location in California, (b) ICANN being subject to the laws of any other country as a result of its location within or contacts with that country, or (c) any “choice of law” or venue provisions in agreements with ICANN.)
ENDS
Lets move on with it. We are spending too much time on framing a question.
*Kavouss Arasteh: * Grec, Tks again, As I said I believe ,it is counter productive to discuss many alternative, I could agree with formulation of Parminder Regards Kavouss
*Sam Lanfranco:* Greg,
Thank you for presenting alternatives for reaching agreement on a* Roadmap for Moving Forward to identify operational issues embedded in the overall “jurisdiction” issue*. It is important to recognize that what is being proposed is the choice of roadmap for moving forward. Where this takes us will flow from the assembly of evidence, the application of analysis, and the resulting array of possible options for addressing jurisdiction base operational issues.
Sam Lanfranco
_______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
I am forwarding the following message from Seun Ojedeji to the Jurisdiction list, as he currently has Observer status and cannot post. Greg On Fri, Dec 30, 2016 at 2:37 AM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> wrote:
The suggested way forward seem fine but I would suggest modifying alternative 1 of question 4 by asking for just the "disadvantages" as I don't think there is need to ask for advantages since the goal of the question is to identify issues (okay problems - just playing around with words).
Regards PS: Can't remember if I have posting rights. Otherwise, kindly help forward to list.
Sent from my LG G4 Kindly excuse brevity and typos
On 30 Dec 2016 8:27 a.m., "Greg Shatan" <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
REMINDER to READ this email and RESPOND, at least with regard to the questionnaire (see attachment). I've slightly revised the email for clarity.
To try and focus this discussion, I'll provide a strawman for how to deal with the alternatives:
Preamble -- Use Alternative 1. Question 1 -- Use Alternative 1. Question 2 -- No change Question 3 -- No change. Question 4 -- Use Alternative 1.
Thank you for your responses.
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> Date: Tue, Dec 27, 2016 at 3:28 PM Subject: Focus, Working Method and Revisions to Proposed Questions: RESPONSE REQUESTED [was: Jurisdiction Proposed Questions and Poll Results] To: ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org
All,
I'm sending this to the Jurisdiction subgroup list, since this was initially send to a discussion thread on jurisdiction taking place on the CCWG list.
*Please respond here, rather than there. Thank you.*
Greg
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> Date: Tue, Dec 27, 2016 at 2:56 AM Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] RES: Jurisdiction Proposed Questions and Poll Results To: "accountability-cross-community@icann.org" < accountability-cross-community@icann.org>
All:
Two quick but important points:
1. We have strayed from the basic topic in front of us, which is to decide on the formulation of the questions to be sent out. * I have gone through the emails and meeting notes and pulled the alternative formulations and revisions in to a single document, attached to this email. *
With regard to question 4, I believe that the best way to move forward is to see if one of the alternatives gets stronger support within the CCWG. If we can get to a point where there is broad support for the question without significant opposition that may resolve issues relating to whether and when this question will be sent out.
2. Our overall agreed-upon working method is to first identify, discuss and arrive at a list of problems , and then move on to identifying, discussing and arriving at a list of potential remedies for each problem on our list. We are still working on problems . For a remedy to be up for discussion when we move to discussing remedies, that remedy needs to provide a solution to a problem . We can't discuss a potential remedy without having a problem it is intended to solve. If there is a potential "remedy" but it does not solve any of our problems , we won't discuss it.
We've already put aside one potential "remedy" until we see whether we identify any problems it would solve -- the "remedy" of changing ICANN's jurisdiction of incorporation or headquarters location. "Immunity" is another potential remedy that we need to deal with the same way. Skipping forward to discussions of remedies is only slowing down our discussion of problems . I strongly suggest we refocus on problems , so that we can get to the discussion of remedies. Once we've agreed on a list of problems , a discussion of remedies will be more productive.
Our working method of dealing with problems first and then remedies may also help us find agreement on a way to deal with question 4. Questions 1-3 clearly deal with issues. Perhaps a version of question 4 that is limited to asking for problems will get broader support ("Alternative 1" on the attachment may fit this description.)
Greg
*The following responses were received on the Accountability list*:
*Parminder*: Greg/ All
I think the Alternative 1, which you take as likely candidate for broader support, is fine. I list this formulation below:
What are the advantages or disadvantages, if any, relating to ICANN's jurisdiction*, particularly with regard to the actual operation of ICANN’s policies and accountability mechanisms? Please support your response with appropriate examples, references to specific laws, case studies, other studies, and analysis. In particular, please indicate if there are current or past instances that highlight such advantages or problems.
(* For these questions, “ICANN’s jurisdiction” refers to (a) ICANN being subject to U.S. and California law as a result of its incorporation and location in California, (b) ICANN being subject to the laws of any other country as a result of its location within or contacts with that country, or (c) any “choice of law” or venue provisions in agreements with ICANN.)
ENDS
Lets move on with it. We are spending too much time on framing a question.
*Kavouss Arasteh: * Grec, Tks again, As I said I believe ,it is counter productive to discuss many alternative, I could agree with formulation of Parminder Regards Kavouss
*Sam Lanfranco:* Greg,
Thank you for presenting alternatives for reaching agreement on a* Roadmap for Moving Forward to identify operational issues embedded in the overall “jurisdiction” issue*. It is important to recognize that what is being proposed is the choice of roadmap for moving forward. Where this takes us will flow from the assembly of evidence, the application of analysis, and the resulting array of possible options for addressing jurisdiction base operational issues.
Sam Lanfranco
_______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
Actually, this is a good example of why I don't think this question is helpful. Not because I object to the solution space (as Avri says some may) but because this question is not designed to get us to the solution space that might exist. Asking only about problems or issues with respect to the jurisdiction of incorporation ignores the question of benefits. asking about problems only is like asking me what I dislike about my wife, and not taking into account all the many myriad things I like about her. :-) And, as I've said before, the question as formulated also ignores the issue of whether any other Jurisidction might be an improvement or not. It is easy to discount the value of my own wife for a hypothetical beauty -- but in the real world, the choices are not hypothetical. Unless we ask about benefits that have arisen from the current jursidiction; and also experiences with other potential venues, this question is just a way of collecting complaints about American juridiction. So, while I completely understand why Seun would make this suggestion and while, from one perspective, it is a sensible one, it is just a good example of why this question is so fraught. Happy new year all Paul -- Paul Rosenzweig Sent from myMail app for Android Friday, 30 December 2016, 00:20PM -05:00 from Greg Shatan gregshatanipc@gmail.com :
I am forwarding the following message from Seun Ojedeji to the Jurisdiction list, as he currently has Observer status and cannot post.
Greg
On Fri, Dec 30, 2016 at 2:37 AM, Seun Ojedeji < seun.ojedeji@gmail.com > wrote:
The suggested way forward seem fine but I would suggest modifying alternative 1 of question 4 by asking for just the "disadvantages" as I don't think there is need to ask for advantages since the goal of the question is to identify issues (okay problems - just playing around with words).
Regards PS: Can't remember if I have posting rights. Otherwise, kindly help forward to list.
Sent from my LG G4 Kindly excuse brevity and typos
On 30 Dec 2016 8:27 a.m., "Greg Shatan" < gregshatanipc@gmail.com > wrote:
REMINDER to READ this email and RESPOND, at least with regard to the questionnaire (see attachment). I've slightly revised the email for clarity.
To try and focus this discussion, I'll provide a strawman for how to deal with the alternatives:
Preamble -- Use Alternative 1. Question 1 -- Use Alternative 1. Question 2 -- No change Question 3 -- No change. Question 4 -- Use Alternative 1.
Thank you for your responses.
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Greg Shatan < gregshatanipc@gmail.com > Date: Tue, Dec 27, 2016 at 3:28 PM Subject: Focus, Working Method and Revisions to Proposed Questions: RESPONSE REQUESTED [was: Jurisdiction Proposed Questions and Poll Results] To: ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org
All,
I'm sending this to the Jurisdiction subgroup list, since this was initially send to a discussion thread on jurisdiction taking place on the CCWG list.
Please respond here, rather than there. Thank you.
Greg
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Greg Shatan < gregshatanipc@gmail.com > Date: Tue, Dec 27, 2016 at 2:56 AM Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] RES: Jurisdiction Proposed Questions and Poll Results To: " accountability-cross-community@icann.org " < accountability-cross-community@icann.org >
All:
Two quick but important points:
1. We have strayed from the basic topic in front of us, which is to decide on the formulation of the questions to be sent out. I have gone through the emails and meeting notes and pulled the alternative formulations and revisions in to a single document, attached to this email.
With regard to question 4, I believe that the best way to move forward is to see if one of the alternatives gets stronger support within the CCWG. If we can get to a point where there is broad support for the question without significant opposition that may resolve issues relating to whether and when this question will be sent out.
2. Our overall agreed-upon working method is to first identify, discuss and arrive at a list of problems , and then move on to identifying, discussing and arriving at a list of potential remedies for each problem on our list. We are still working on problems . For a remedy to be up for discussion when we move to discussing remedies, that remedy needs to provide a solution to a problem . We can't discuss a potential remedy without having a problem it is intended to solve. If there is a potential "remedy" but it does not solve any of our problems , we won't discuss it.
We've already put aside one potential "remedy" until we see whether we identify any problems it would solve -- the "remedy" of changing ICANN's jurisdiction of incorporation or headquarters location. "Immunity" is another potential remedy that we need to deal with the same way. Skipping forward to discussions of remedies is only slowing down our discussion of problems . I strongly suggest we refocus on problems , so that we can get to the discussion of remedies. Once we've agreed on a list of problems , a discussion of remedies will be more productive.
Our working method of dealing with problems first and then remedies may also help us find agreement on a way to deal with question 4. Questions 1-3 clearly deal with issues. Perhaps a version of question 4 that is limited to asking for problems will get broader support ("Alternative 1" on the attachment may fit this description.)
Greg The following responses were received on the Accountability list :
Parminder : Greg/ All I think the Alternative 1, which you take as likely candidate for broader support, is fine. I list this formulation below: What are the advantages or disadvantages, if any, relating to ICANN's jurisdiction*, particularly with regard to the actual operation of ICANN’s policies and accountability mechanisms? Please support your response with appropriate examples, references to specific laws, case studies, other studies, and analysis. In particular, please indicate if there are current or past instances that highlight such advantages or problems. ( * For these questions, “ICANN’s jurisdiction” refers to (a) ICANN being subject to U.S. and California law as a result of its incorporation and location in California, (b) ICANN being subject to the laws of any other country as a result of its location within or contacts with that country, or (c) any “choice of law” or venue provisions in agreements with ICANN.) ENDS
Lets move on with it. We are spending too much time on framing a question.
Kavouss Arasteh: Grec, Tks again, As I said I believe ,it is counter productive to discuss many alternative, I could agree with formulation of Parminder Regards Kavouss
Sam Lanfranco: Greg,
Thank you for presenting alternatives for reaching agreement on a Roadmap for Moving Forward to identify operational issues embedded in the overall “jurisdiction” issue . It is important to recognize that what is being proposed is the choice of roadmap for moving forward. Where this takes us will flow from the assembly of evidence, the application of analysis, and the resulting array of possible options for addressing jurisdiction base operational issues.
Sam Lanfranco
_______________________________________________ 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 Paul, First happy New Year in adavance. Let us Serious +++ Unfortunately some people does not understand the problems of others . They are mono cultural ,mon lingual and .....Regards. Kavouss 2016-12-31 19:20 GMT+01:00 Paul Rosenzweig < paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com>:
Actually, this is a good example of why I don't think this question is helpful. Not because I object to the solution space (as Avri says some may) but because this question is not designed to get us to the solution space that might exist. Asking only about problems or issues with respect to the jurisdiction of incorporation ignores the question of benefits. asking about problems only is like asking me what I dislike about my wife, and not taking into account all the many myriad things I like about her. :-)
And, as I've said before, the question as formulated also ignores the issue of whether any other Jurisidction might be an improvement or not. It is easy to discount the value of my own wife for a hypothetical beauty -- but in the real world, the choices are not hypothetical. Unless we ask about benefits that have arisen from the current jursidiction; and also experiences with other potential venues, this question is just a way of collecting complaints about American juridiction.
So, while I completely understand why Seun would make this suggestion and while, from one perspective, it is a sensible one, it is just a good example of why this question is so fraught.
Happy new year all Paul
-- Paul Rosenzweig Sent from myMail app for Android Friday, 30 December 2016, 00:20PM -05:00 from Greg Shatan gregshatanipc@gmail.com:
I am forwarding the following message from Seun Ojedeji to the Jurisdiction list, as he currently has Observer status and cannot post.
Greg
On Fri, Dec 30, 2016 at 2:37 AM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com <https://e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3aseun.ojedeji@gmail.com>> wrote:
The suggested way forward seem fine but I would suggest modifying alternative 1 of question 4 by asking for just the "disadvantages" as I don't think there is need to ask for advantages since the goal of the question is to identify issues (okay problems - just playing around with words).
Regards PS: Can't remember if I have posting rights. Otherwise, kindly help forward to list.
Sent from my LG G4 Kindly excuse brevity and typos
On 30 Dec 2016 8:27 a.m., "Greg Shatan" <gregshatanipc@gmail.com <https://e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3agregshatanipc@gmail.com>> wrote:
REMINDER to READ this email and RESPOND, at least with regard to the questionnaire (see attachment). I've slightly revised the email for clarity.
To try and focus this discussion, I'll provide a strawman for how to deal with the alternatives:
Preamble -- Use Alternative 1. Question 1 -- Use Alternative 1. Question 2 -- No change Question 3 -- No change. Question 4 -- Use Alternative 1.
Thank you for your responses.
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: *Greg Shatan* <gregshatanipc@gmail.com <https://e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3agregshatanipc@gmail.com>> Date: Tue, Dec 27, 2016 at 3:28 PM Subject: Focus, Working Method and Revisions to Proposed Questions: RESPONSE REQUESTED [was: Jurisdiction Proposed Questions and Poll Results] To: ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org <https://e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3aws2%2djurisdiction@icann.org>
All,
I'm sending this to the Jurisdiction subgroup list, since this was initially send to a discussion thread on jurisdiction taking place on the CCWG list.
*Please respond here, rather than there. Thank you.*
Greg
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: *Greg Shatan* <gregshatanipc@gmail.com <https://e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3agregshatanipc@gmail.com>> Date: Tue, Dec 27, 2016 at 2:56 AM Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] RES: Jurisdiction Proposed Questions and Poll Results To: "accountability-cross-community@icann.org <https://e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3aaccountability%2dcross%2dcommun...>" <accountability-cross-community@icann.org <https://e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3aaccountability%2dcross%2dcommun...>
All:
Two quick but important points:
1. We have strayed from the basic topic in front of us, which is to decide on the formulation of the questions to be sent out. * I have gone through the emails and meeting notes and pulled the alternative formulations and revisions in to a single document, attached to this email. *
With regard to question 4, I believe that the best way to move forward is to see if one of the alternatives gets stronger support within the CCWG. If we can get to a point where there is broad support for the question without significant opposition that may resolve issues relating to whether and when this question will be sent out.
2. Our overall agreed-upon working method is to first identify, discuss and arrive at a list of problems , and then move on to identifying, discussing and arriving at a list of potential remedies for each problem on our list. We are still working on problems . For a remedy to be up for discussion when we move to discussing remedies, that remedy needs to provide a solution to a problem . We can't discuss a potential remedy without having a problem it is intended to solve. If there is a potential "remedy" but it does not solve any of our problems , we won't discuss it.
We've already put aside one potential "remedy" until we see whether we identify any problems it would solve -- the "remedy" of changing ICANN's jurisdiction of incorporation or headquarters location. "Immunity" is another potential remedy that we need to deal with the same way. Skipping forward to discussions of remedies is only slowing down our discussion of problems . I strongly suggest we refocus on problems , so that we can get to the discussion of remedies. Once we've agreed on a list of problems , a discussion of remedies will be more productive.
Our working method of dealing with problems first and then remedies may also help us find agreement on a way to deal with question 4. Questions 1-3 clearly deal with issues. Perhaps a version of question 4 that is limited to asking for problems will get broader support ("Alternative 1" on the attachment may fit this description.)
Greg
*The following responses were received on the Accountability list*:
*Parminder*: Greg/ All
I think the Alternative 1, which you take as likely candidate for broader support, is fine. I list this formulation below:
What are the advantages or disadvantages, if any, relating to ICANN's jurisdiction*, particularly with regard to the actual operation of ICANN’s policies and accountability mechanisms? Please support your response with appropriate examples, references to specific laws, case studies, other studies, and analysis. In particular, please indicate if there are current or past instances that highlight such advantages or problems.
(* For these questions, “ICANN’s jurisdiction” refers to (a) ICANN being subject to U.S. and California law as a result of its incorporation and location in California, (b) ICANN being subject to the laws of any other country as a result of its location within or contacts with that country, or (c) any “choice of law” or venue provisions in agreements with ICANN.)
ENDS
Lets move on with it. We are spending too much time on framing a question.
*Kavouss Arasteh: * Grec, Tks again, As I said I believe ,it is counter productive to discuss many alternative, I could agree with formulation of Parminder Regards Kavouss
*Sam Lanfranco:* Greg,
Thank you for presenting alternatives for reaching agreement on a* Roadmap for Moving Forward to identify operational issues embedded in the overall “jurisdiction” issue*. It is important to recognize that what is being proposed is the choice of roadmap for moving forward. Where this takes us will flow from the assembly of evidence, the application of analysis, and the resulting array of possible options for addressing jurisdiction base operational issues.
Sam Lanfranco
_______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org <https://e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3aWs2%2djurisdiction@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
_______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org <https://e-aj.my.com/compose?To=Ws2%2djurisdiction@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
+ 1 Paul On 31/12/2016 18:20, Paul Rosenzweig wrote:
Actually, this is a good example of why I don't think this question is helpful. Not because I object to the solution space (as Avri says some may) but because this question is not designed to get us to the solution space that might exist. Asking only about problems or issues with respect to the jurisdiction of incorporation ignores the question of benefits. asking about problems only is like asking me what I dislike about my wife, and not taking into account all the many myriad things I like about her. :-)
And, as I've said before, the question as formulated also ignores the issue of whether any other Jurisidction might be an improvement or not. It is easy to discount the value of my own wife for a hypothetical beauty -- but in the real world, the choices are not hypothetical. Unless we ask about benefits that have arisen from the current jursidiction; and also experiences with other potential venues, this question is just a way of collecting complaints about American juridiction.
So, while I completely understand why Seun would make this suggestion and while, from one perspective, it is a sensible one, it is just a good example of why this question is so fraught.
Happy new year all Paul
-- Paul Rosenzweig Sent from myMail app for Android
Friday, 30 December 2016, 00:20PM -05:00 from Greg Shatan gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>:
I am forwarding the following message from Seun Ojedeji to the Jurisdiction list, as he currently has Observer status and cannot post.
Greg
On Fri, Dec 30, 2016 at 2:37 AM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com <//e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3aseun.ojedeji@gmail.com>> wrote:
The suggested way forward seem fine but I would suggest modifying alternative 1 of question 4 by asking for just the "disadvantages" as I don't think there is need to ask for advantages since the goal of the question is to identify issues (okay problems - just playing around with words).
Regards PS: Can't remember if I have posting rights. Otherwise, kindly help forward to list.
Sent from my LG G4 Kindly excuse brevity and typos
On 30 Dec 2016 8:27 a.m., "Greg Shatan" <gregshatanipc@gmail.com <//e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3agregshatanipc@gmail.com>> wrote:
REMINDER to READ this email and RESPOND, at least with regard to the questionnaire (see attachment). I've slightly revised the email for clarity.
To try and focus this discussion, I'll provide a strawman for how to deal with the alternatives:
Preamble -- Use Alternative 1. Question 1 -- Use Alternative 1. Question 2 -- No change Question 3 -- No change. Question 4 -- Use Alternative 1.
Thank you for your responses.
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: *Greg Shatan* <gregshatanipc@gmail.com <//e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3agregshatanipc@gmail.com>> Date: Tue, Dec 27, 2016 at 3:28 PM Subject: Focus, Working Method and Revisions to Proposed Questions: RESPONSE REQUESTED [was: Jurisdiction Proposed Questions and Poll Results] To: ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org <//e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3aws2%2djurisdiction@icann.org>
All,
I'm sending this to the Jurisdiction subgroup list, since this was initially send to a discussion thread on jurisdiction taking place on the CCWG list.
*Please respond here, rather than there. Thank you.*
Greg
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: *Greg Shatan* <gregshatanipc@gmail.com <//e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3agregshatanipc@gmail.com>> Date: Tue, Dec 27, 2016 at 2:56 AM Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] RES: Jurisdiction Proposed Questions and Poll Results To: "accountability-cross-community@icann.org <//e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3aaccountability%2dcross%2dcommunity@icann.org>" <accountability-cross-community@icann.org <//e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3aaccountability%2dcross%2dcommunity@icann.org>>
All:
Two quick but important points:
1. We have strayed from the basic topic in front of us, which is to decide on the formulation of the questions to be sent out. * I have gone through the emails and meeting notes and pulled the alternative formulations and revisions in to a single document, attached to this email. *
With regard to question 4, I believe that the best way to move forward is to see if one of the alternatives gets stronger support within the CCWG. If we can get to a point where there is broad support for the question without significant opposition that may resolve issues relating to whether and when this question will be sent out.
2. Our overall agreed-upon working method is to first identify, discuss and arrive at a list of problems , and then move on to identifying, discussing and arriving at a list of potential remedies for each problem on our list. We are still working on problems . For a remedy to be up for discussion when we move to discussing remedies, that remedy needs to provide a solution to a problem . We can't discuss a potential remedy without having a problem it is intended to solve. If there is a potential "remedy" but it does not solve any of our problems , we won't discuss it.
We've already put aside one potential "remedy" until we see whether we identify any problems it would solve -- the "remedy" of changing ICANN's jurisdiction of incorporation or headquarters location. "Immunity" is another potential remedy that we need to deal with the same way. Skipping forward to discussions of remedies is only slowing down our discussion of problems . I strongly suggest we refocus on problems , so that we can get to the discussion of remedies. Once we've agreed on a list of problems , a discussion of remedies will be more productive.
Our working method of dealing with problems first and then remedies may also help us find agreement on a way to deal with question 4. Questions 1-3 clearly deal with issues. Perhaps a version of question 4 that is limited to asking for problems will get broader support ("Alternative 1" on the attachment may fit this description.)
Greg
_The following responses were received on the Accountability list_:
*Parminder*: Greg/ All
I think the Alternative 1, which you take as likely candidate for broader support, is fine. I list this formulation below:
What are the advantages or disadvantages, if any, relating to ICANN's jurisdiction*, particularly with regard to the actual operation of ICANN’s policies and accountability mechanisms? Please support your response with appropriate examples, references to specific laws, case studies, other studies, and analysis. In particular, please indicate if there are current or past instances that highlight such advantages or problems.
(* For these questions, “ICANN’s jurisdiction” refers to (a) ICANN being subject to U.S. and California law as a result of its incorporation and location in California, (b) ICANN being subject to the laws of any other country as a result of its location within or contacts with that country, or (c) any “choice of law” or venue provisions in agreements with ICANN.)
ENDS
Lets move on with it. We are spending too much time on framing a question.
*Kavouss Arasteh: * Grec, Tks again, As I said I believe ,it is counter productive to discuss many alternative, I could agree with formulation of Parminder Regards Kavouss
*Sam Lanfranco:* Greg,
Thank you for presenting alternatives for reaching agreement on a/ Roadmap for Moving Forward to identify operational issues embedded in the overall “jurisdiction” issue/. It is important to recognize that what is being proposed is the choice of roadmap for moving forward. Where this takes us will flow from the assembly of evidence, the application of analysis, and the resulting array of possible options for addressing jurisdiction base operational issues.
Sam Lanfranco* *
_______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org <//e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3aWs2%2djurisdiction@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
_______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org </compose?To=Ws2%2djurisdiction@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
-- ------------ Matthew Shears Global Internet Policy and Human Rights Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT) + 44 771 2472987
The people who support each others are those which are happy and comfort with the existing régime as they are all from one single country . Consequently their support does not represent the balanced views of global multistakeholder. Useless to continue to support the division rather they need to look for a basis for consensus. The poll results also are not valid for Q4 as the opponents to Q4 are almost from one single country. The process is failed and logic is MISSING the views are not representative. Instead of nationals or affiliate from varions part of a single country support each other they need to listen to the others No need to receive this support as will not count. If the jurisdiction is not handled in a proper and mutually acceptable to everybody the entire process would be failed . Regards Kavouss 2017-01-01 19:02 GMT+01:00 matthew shears <mshears@cdt.org>:
+ 1 Paul
On 31/12/2016 18:20, Paul Rosenzweig wrote:
Actually, this is a good example of why I don't think this question is helpful. Not because I object to the solution space (as Avri says some may) but because this question is not designed to get us to the solution space that might exist. Asking only about problems or issues with respect to the jurisdiction of incorporation ignores the question of benefits. asking about problems only is like asking me what I dislike about my wife, and not taking into account all the many myriad things I like about her. :-)
And, as I've said before, the question as formulated also ignores the issue of whether any other Jurisidction might be an improvement or not. It is easy to discount the value of my own wife for a hypothetical beauty -- but in the real world, the choices are not hypothetical. Unless we ask about benefits that have arisen from the current jursidiction; and also experiences with other potential venues, this question is just a way of collecting complaints about American juridiction.
So, while I completely understand why Seun would make this suggestion and while, from one perspective, it is a sensible one, it is just a good example of why this question is so fraught.
Happy new year all Paul
-- Paul Rosenzweig Sent from myMail app for Android Friday, 30 December 2016, 00:20PM -05:00 from Greg Shatan gregshatanipc@gmail.com:
I am forwarding the following message from Seun Ojedeji to the Jurisdiction list, as he currently has Observer status and cannot post.
Greg
On Fri, Dec 30, 2016 at 2:37 AM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com <https://e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3aseun.ojedeji@gmail.com>> wrote:
The suggested way forward seem fine but I would suggest modifying alternative 1 of question 4 by asking for just the "disadvantages" as I don't think there is need to ask for advantages since the goal of the question is to identify issues (okay problems - just playing around with words).
Regards PS: Can't remember if I have posting rights. Otherwise, kindly help forward to list.
Sent from my LG G4 Kindly excuse brevity and typos
On 30 Dec 2016 8:27 a.m., "Greg Shatan" <gregshatanipc@gmail.com <https://e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3agregshatanipc@gmail.com>> wrote:
REMINDER to READ this email and RESPOND, at least with regard to the questionnaire (see attachment). I've slightly revised the email for clarity.
To try and focus this discussion, I'll provide a strawman for how to deal with the alternatives:
Preamble -- Use Alternative 1. Question 1 -- Use Alternative 1. Question 2 -- No change Question 3 -- No change. Question 4 -- Use Alternative 1.
Thank you for your responses.
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: *Greg Shatan* <gregshatanipc@gmail.com <https://e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3agregshatanipc@gmail.com>> Date: Tue, Dec 27, 2016 at 3:28 PM Subject: Focus, Working Method and Revisions to Proposed Questions: RESPONSE REQUESTED [was: Jurisdiction Proposed Questions and Poll Results] To: ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org <https://e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3aws2%2djurisdiction@icann.org>
All,
I'm sending this to the Jurisdiction subgroup list, since this was initially send to a discussion thread on jurisdiction taking place on the CCWG list.
*Please respond here, rather than there. Thank you.*
Greg
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: *Greg Shatan* <gregshatanipc@gmail.com <https://e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3agregshatanipc@gmail.com>> Date: Tue, Dec 27, 2016 at 2:56 AM Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] RES: Jurisdiction Proposed Questions and Poll Results To: "accountability-cross-community@icann.org <https://e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3aaccountability%2dcross%2dcommun...>" <accountability-cross-community@icann.org <https://e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3aaccountability%2dcross%2dcommun...>
All:
Two quick but important points:
1. We have strayed from the basic topic in front of us, which is to decide on the formulation of the questions to be sent out. * I have gone through the emails and meeting notes and pulled the alternative formulations and revisions in to a single document, attached to this email. *
With regard to question 4, I believe that the best way to move forward is to see if one of the alternatives gets stronger support within the CCWG. If we can get to a point where there is broad support for the question without significant opposition that may resolve issues relating to whether and when this question will be sent out.
2. Our overall agreed-upon working method is to first identify, discuss and arrive at a list of problems , and then move on to identifying, discussing and arriving at a list of potential remedies for each problem on our list. We are still working on problems . For a remedy to be up for discussion when we move to discussing remedies, that remedy needs to provide a solution to a problem . We can't discuss a potential remedy without having a problem it is intended to solve. If there is a potential "remedy" but it does not solve any of our problems , we won't discuss it.
We've already put aside one potential "remedy" until we see whether we identify any problems it would solve -- the "remedy" of changing ICANN's jurisdiction of incorporation or headquarters location. "Immunity" is another potential remedy that we need to deal with the same way. Skipping forward to discussions of remedies is only slowing down our discussion of problems . I strongly suggest we refocus on problems , so that we can get to the discussion of remedies. Once we've agreed on a list of problems , a discussion of remedies will be more productive.
Our working method of dealing with problems first and then remedies may also help us find agreement on a way to deal with question 4. Questions 1-3 clearly deal with issues. Perhaps a version of question 4 that is limited to asking for problems will get broader support ("Alternative 1" on the attachment may fit this description.)
Greg
*The following responses were received on the Accountability list*:
*Parminder*: Greg/ All
I think the Alternative 1, which you take as likely candidate for broader support, is fine. I list this formulation below:
What are the advantages or disadvantages, if any, relating to ICANN's jurisdiction*, particularly with regard to the actual operation of ICANN’s policies and accountability mechanisms? Please support your response with appropriate examples, references to specific laws, case studies, other studies, and analysis. In particular, please indicate if there are current or past instances that highlight such advantages or problems.
(* For these questions, “ICANN’s jurisdiction” refers to (a) ICANN being subject to U.S. and California law as a result of its incorporation and location in California, (b) ICANN being subject to the laws of any other country as a result of its location within or contacts with that country, or (c) any “choice of law” or venue provisions in agreements with ICANN.) ENDS
Lets move on with it. We are spending too much time on framing a question.
*Kavouss Arasteh: * Grec, Tks again, As I said I believe ,it is counter productive to discuss many alternative, I could agree with formulation of Parminder Regards Kavouss
*Sam Lanfranco:* Greg,
Thank you for presenting alternatives for reaching agreement on a* Roadmap for Moving Forward to identify operational issues embedded in the overall “jurisdiction” issue*. It is important to recognize that what is being proposed is the choice of roadmap for moving forward. Where this takes us will flow from the assembly of evidence, the application of analysis, and the resulting array of possible options for addressing jurisdiction base operational issues.
Sam Lanfranco
_______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org <https://e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3aWs2%2djurisdiction@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
_______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org <https://e-aj.my.com/compose?To=Ws2%2djurisdiction@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
_______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing listWs2-jurisdiction@icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
-- ------------ Matthew Shears Global Internet Policy and Human Rights Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)+ 44 771 2472987 <+44%207712%20472987>
_______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
Hi, In my opinion, I think Questions 1 and 2 are well formulated. While question 3 serves as a feedback to questions 1 & 2. Why not focus discussions on the sources of data? With regard to Question 4, Alternatives 1 - 4, what do we mean by " *Advantages*" and "*Disadvantages*" pertaining to policies and accountability mechanisms? Happy new year everyone. Regards, Wale On Sun, Jan 1, 2017 at 6:02 PM, matthew shears <mshears@cdt.org> wrote:
+ 1 Paul
On 31/12/2016 18:20, Paul Rosenzweig wrote:
Actually, this is a good example of why I don't think this question is helpful. Not because I object to the solution space (as Avri says some may) but because this question is not designed to get us to the solution space that might exist. Asking only about problems or issues with respect to the jurisdiction of incorporation ignores the question of benefits. asking about problems only is like asking me what I dislike about my wife, and not taking into account all the many myriad things I like about her. :-)
And, as I've said before, the question as formulated also ignores the issue of whether any other Jurisidction might be an improvement or not. It is easy to discount the value of my own wife for a hypothetical beauty -- but in the real world, the choices are not hypothetical. Unless we ask about benefits that have arisen from the current jursidiction; and also experiences with other potential venues, this question is just a way of collecting complaints about American juridiction.
So, while I completely understand why Seun would make this suggestion and while, from one perspective, it is a sensible one, it is just a good example of why this question is so fraught.
Happy new year all Paul
-- Paul Rosenzweig Sent from myMail app for Android Friday, 30 December 2016, 00:20PM -05:00 from Greg Shatan gregshatanipc@gmail.com:
I am forwarding the following message from Seun Ojedeji to the Jurisdiction list, as he currently has Observer status and cannot post.
Greg
On Fri, Dec 30, 2016 at 2:37 AM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com <https://e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3aseun.ojedeji@gmail.com>> wrote:
The suggested way forward seem fine but I would suggest modifying alternative 1 of question 4 by asking for just the "disadvantages" as I don't think there is need to ask for advantages since the goal of the question is to identify issues (okay problems - just playing around with words).
Regards PS: Can't remember if I have posting rights. Otherwise, kindly help forward to list.
Sent from my LG G4 Kindly excuse brevity and typos
On 30 Dec 2016 8:27 a.m., "Greg Shatan" <gregshatanipc@gmail.com <https://e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3agregshatanipc@gmail.com>> wrote:
REMINDER to READ this email and RESPOND, at least with regard to the questionnaire (see attachment). I've slightly revised the email for clarity.
To try and focus this discussion, I'll provide a strawman for how to deal with the alternatives:
Preamble -- Use Alternative 1. Question 1 -- Use Alternative 1. Question 2 -- No change Question 3 -- No change. Question 4 -- Use Alternative 1.
Thank you for your responses.
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: *Greg Shatan* <gregshatanipc@gmail.com <https://e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3agregshatanipc@gmail.com>> Date: Tue, Dec 27, 2016 at 3:28 PM Subject: Focus, Working Method and Revisions to Proposed Questions: RESPONSE REQUESTED [was: Jurisdiction Proposed Questions and Poll Results] To: ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org <https://e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3aws2%2djurisdiction@icann.org>
All,
I'm sending this to the Jurisdiction subgroup list, since this was initially send to a discussion thread on jurisdiction taking place on the CCWG list.
*Please respond here, rather than there. Thank you.*
Greg
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: *Greg Shatan* <gregshatanipc@gmail.com <https://e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3agregshatanipc@gmail.com>> Date: Tue, Dec 27, 2016 at 2:56 AM Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] RES: Jurisdiction Proposed Questions and Poll Results To: "accountability-cross-community@icann.org <https://e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3aaccountability%2dcross%2dcommun...>" <accountability-cross-community@icann.org <https://e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3aaccountability%2dcross%2dcommun...>
All:
Two quick but important points:
1. We have strayed from the basic topic in front of us, which is to decide on the formulation of the questions to be sent out. * I have gone through the emails and meeting notes and pulled the alternative formulations and revisions in to a single document, attached to this email. *
With regard to question 4, I believe that the best way to move forward is to see if one of the alternatives gets stronger support within the CCWG. If we can get to a point where there is broad support for the question without significant opposition that may resolve issues relating to whether and when this question will be sent out.
2. Our overall agreed-upon working method is to first identify, discuss and arrive at a list of problems , and then move on to identifying, discussing and arriving at a list of potential remedies for each problem on our list. We are still working on problems . For a remedy to be up for discussion when we move to discussing remedies, that remedy needs to provide a solution to a problem . We can't discuss a potential remedy without having a problem it is intended to solve. If there is a potential "remedy" but it does not solve any of our problems , we won't discuss it.
We've already put aside one potential "remedy" until we see whether we identify any problems it would solve -- the "remedy" of changing ICANN's jurisdiction of incorporation or headquarters location. "Immunity" is another potential remedy that we need to deal with the same way. Skipping forward to discussions of remedies is only slowing down our discussion of problems . I strongly suggest we refocus on problems , so that we can get to the discussion of remedies. Once we've agreed on a list of problems , a discussion of remedies will be more productive.
Our working method of dealing with problems first and then remedies may also help us find agreement on a way to deal with question 4. Questions 1-3 clearly deal with issues. Perhaps a version of question 4 that is limited to asking for problems will get broader support ("Alternative 1" on the attachment may fit this description.)
Greg
*The following responses were received on the Accountability list*:
*Parminder*: Greg/ All
I think the Alternative 1, which you take as likely candidate for broader support, is fine. I list this formulation below:
What are the advantages or disadvantages, if any, relating to ICANN's jurisdiction*, particularly with regard to the actual operation of ICANN’s policies and accountability mechanisms? Please support your response with appropriate examples, references to specific laws, case studies, other studies, and analysis. In particular, please indicate if there are current or past instances that highlight such advantages or problems.
(* For these questions, “ICANN’s jurisdiction” refers to (a) ICANN being subject to U.S. and California law as a result of its incorporation and location in California, (b) ICANN being subject to the laws of any other country as a result of its location within or contacts with that country, or (c) any “choice of law” or venue provisions in agreements with ICANN.) ENDS
Lets move on with it. We are spending too much time on framing a question.
*Kavouss Arasteh: * Grec, Tks again, As I said I believe ,it is counter productive to discuss many alternative, I could agree with formulation of Parminder Regards Kavouss
*Sam Lanfranco:* Greg,
Thank you for presenting alternatives for reaching agreement on a* Roadmap for Moving Forward to identify operational issues embedded in the overall “jurisdiction” issue*. It is important to recognize that what is being proposed is the choice of roadmap for moving forward. Where this takes us will flow from the assembly of evidence, the application of analysis, and the resulting array of possible options for addressing jurisdiction base operational issues.
Sam Lanfranco
_______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org <https://e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3aWs2%2djurisdiction@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
_______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org <https://e-aj.my.com/compose?To=Ws2%2djurisdiction@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
_______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing listWs2-jurisdiction@icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
-- ------------ Matthew Shears Global Internet Policy and Human Rights Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)+ 44 771 2472987 <07712%20472987>
_______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
Paul and Matthew No one here has objected to asking about problems (or benefits) of any alternative jurisdictional option. Please add them where you want to in the questions. In fact, the question 1 already says advantages and disadvantages of ICANN jurisdiction, which terms always mean 'with respect to possible alternatives', but I will be happy to explicitly add to it advantages and disadvantages of any alternative jurisdictional options. But please let us move on. parminder On Sunday 01 January 2017 11:32 PM, matthew shears wrote:
+ 1 Paul
On 31/12/2016 18:20, Paul Rosenzweig wrote:
Actually, this is a good example of why I don't think this question is helpful. Not because I object to the solution space (as Avri says some may) but because this question is not designed to get us to the solution space that might exist. Asking only about problems or issues with respect to the jurisdiction of incorporation ignores the question of benefits. asking about problems only is like asking me what I dislike about my wife, and not taking into account all the many myriad things I like about her. :-)
And, as I've said before, the question as formulated also ignores the issue of whether any other Jurisidction might be an improvement or not. It is easy to discount the value of my own wife for a hypothetical beauty -- but in the real world, the choices are not hypothetical. Unless we ask about benefits that have arisen from the current jursidiction; and also experiences with other potential venues, this question is just a way of collecting complaints about American juridiction.
So, while I completely understand why Seun would make this suggestion and while, from one perspective, it is a sensible one, it is just a good example of why this question is so fraught.
Happy new year all Paul
-- Paul Rosenzweig Sent from myMail app for Android
Friday, 30 December 2016, 00:20PM -05:00 from Greg Shatan gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>:
I am forwarding the following message from Seun Ojedeji to the Jurisdiction list, as he currently has Observer status and cannot post.
Greg
On Fri, Dec 30, 2016 at 2:37 AM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com <//e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3aseun.ojedeji@gmail.com>> wrote:
The suggested way forward seem fine but I would suggest modifying alternative 1 of question 4 by asking for just the "disadvantages" as I don't think there is need to ask for advantages since the goal of the question is to identify issues (okay problems - just playing around with words).
Regards PS: Can't remember if I have posting rights. Otherwise, kindly help forward to list.
Sent from my LG G4 Kindly excuse brevity and typos
On 30 Dec 2016 8:27 a.m., "Greg Shatan" <gregshatanipc@gmail.com <//e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3agregshatanipc@gmail.com>> wrote:
REMINDER to READ this email and RESPOND, at least with regard to the questionnaire (see attachment). I've slightly revised the email for clarity.
To try and focus this discussion, I'll provide a strawman for how to deal with the alternatives:
Preamble -- Use Alternative 1. Question 1 -- Use Alternative 1. Question 2 -- No change Question 3 -- No change. Question 4 -- Use Alternative 1.
Thank you for your responses.
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: *Greg Shatan* <gregshatanipc@gmail.com <//e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3agregshatanipc@gmail.com>> Date: Tue, Dec 27, 2016 at 3:28 PM Subject: Focus, Working Method and Revisions to Proposed Questions: RESPONSE REQUESTED [was: Jurisdiction Proposed Questions and Poll Results] To: ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org <//e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3aws2%2djurisdiction@icann.org>
All,
I'm sending this to the Jurisdiction subgroup list, since this was initially send to a discussion thread on jurisdiction taking place on the CCWG list.
*Please respond here, rather than there. Thank you.*
Greg
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: *Greg Shatan* <gregshatanipc@gmail.com <//e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3agregshatanipc@gmail.com>> Date: Tue, Dec 27, 2016 at 2:56 AM Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] RES: Jurisdiction Proposed Questions and Poll Results To: "accountability-cross-community@icann.org <//e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3aaccountability%2dcross%2dcommunity@icann.org>" <accountability-cross-community@icann.org <//e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3aaccountability%2dcross%2dcommunity@icann.org>>
All:
Two quick but important points:
1. We have strayed from the basic topic in front of us, which is to decide on the formulation of the questions to be sent out. * I have gone through the emails and meeting notes and pulled the alternative formulations and revisions in to a single document, attached to this email. *
With regard to question 4, I believe that the best way to move forward is to see if one of the alternatives gets stronger support within the CCWG. If we can get to a point where there is broad support for the question without significant opposition that may resolve issues relating to whether and when this question will be sent out.
2. Our overall agreed-upon working method is to first identify, discuss and arrive at a list of problems , and then move on to identifying, discussing and arriving at a list of potential remedies for each problem on our list. We are still working on problems . For a remedy to be up for discussion when we move to discussing remedies, that remedy needs to provide a solution to a problem . We can't discuss a potential remedy without having a problem it is intended to solve. If there is a potential "remedy" but it does not solve any of our problems , we won't discuss it.
We've already put aside one potential "remedy" until we see whether we identify any problems it would solve -- the "remedy" of changing ICANN's jurisdiction of incorporation or headquarters location. "Immunity" is another potential remedy that we need to deal with the same way. Skipping forward to discussions of remedies is only slowing down our discussion of problems . I strongly suggest we refocus on problems , so that we can get to the discussion of remedies. Once we've agreed on a list of problems , a discussion of remedies will be more productive.
Our working method of dealing with problems first and then remedies may also help us find agreement on a way to deal with question 4. Questions 1-3 clearly deal with issues. Perhaps a version of question 4 that is limited to asking for problems will get broader support ("Alternative 1" on the attachment may fit this description.)
Greg
_The following responses were received on the Accountability list_:
*Parminder*: Greg/ All
I think the Alternative 1, which you take as likely candidate for broader support, is fine. I list this formulation below:
What are the advantages or disadvantages, if any, relating to ICANN's jurisdiction*, particularly with regard to the actual operation of ICANN’s policies and accountability mechanisms? Please support your response with appropriate examples, references to specific laws, case studies, other studies, and analysis. In particular, please indicate if there are current or past instances that highlight such advantages or problems.
(* For these questions, “ICANN’s jurisdiction” refers to (a) ICANN being subject to U.S. and California law as a result of its incorporation and location in California, (b) ICANN being subject to the laws of any other country as a result of its location within or contacts with that country, or (c) any “choice of law” or venue provisions in agreements with ICANN.)
ENDS
Lets move on with it. We are spending too much time on framing a question.
*Kavouss Arasteh: * Grec, Tks again, As I said I believe ,it is counter productive to discuss many alternative, I could agree with formulation of Parminder Regards Kavouss
*Sam Lanfranco:* Greg,
Thank you for presenting alternatives for reaching agreement on a/ Roadmap for Moving Forward to identify operational issues embedded in the overall “jurisdiction” issue/. It is important to recognize that what is being proposed is the choice of roadmap for moving forward. Where this takes us will flow from the assembly of evidence, the application of analysis, and the resulting array of possible options for addressing jurisdiction base operational issues.
Sam Lanfranco* *
_______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org <//e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3aWs2%2djurisdiction@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
_______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org </compose?To=Ws2%2djurisdiction@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
-- ------------ Matthew Shears Global Internet Policy and Human Rights Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT) + 44 771 2472987
_______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
This is regarding the Jurisdiction sub group Meeting #15 (*5 January @ 19:00 UTC*) . The last meeting on 19th Dec was also at 1900 UTC. Did we not agree to alternate between 1900 and 1300 UTC? Chair, I request, accordingly, to change the time. parminder On Monday 02 January 2017 09:38 AM, parminder wrote:
Paul and Matthew
No one here has objected to asking about problems (or benefits) of any alternative jurisdictional option. Please add them where you want to in the questions. In fact, the question 1 already says advantages and disadvantages of ICANN jurisdiction, which terms always mean 'with respect to possible alternatives', but I will be happy to explicitly add to it advantages and disadvantages of any alternative jurisdictional options. But please let us move on.
parminder
On Sunday 01 January 2017 11:32 PM, matthew shears wrote:
+ 1 Paul
On 31/12/2016 18:20, Paul Rosenzweig wrote:
Actually, this is a good example of why I don't think this question is helpful. Not because I object to the solution space (as Avri says some may) but because this question is not designed to get us to the solution space that might exist. Asking only about problems or issues with respect to the jurisdiction of incorporation ignores the question of benefits. asking about problems only is like asking me what I dislike about my wife, and not taking into account all the many myriad things I like about her. :-)
And, as I've said before, the question as formulated also ignores the issue of whether any other Jurisidction might be an improvement or not. It is easy to discount the value of my own wife for a hypothetical beauty -- but in the real world, the choices are not hypothetical. Unless we ask about benefits that have arisen from the current jursidiction; and also experiences with other potential venues, this question is just a way of collecting complaints about American juridiction.
So, while I completely understand why Seun would make this suggestion and while, from one perspective, it is a sensible one, it is just a good example of why this question is so fraught.
Happy new year all Paul
-- Paul Rosenzweig Sent from myMail app for Android
Friday, 30 December 2016, 00:20PM -05:00 from Greg Shatan gregshatanipc@gmail.com:
I am forwarding the following message from Seun Ojedeji to the Jurisdiction list, as he currently has Observer status and cannot post.
Greg
On Fri, Dec 30, 2016 at 2:37 AM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com <//e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3aseun.ojedeji@gmail.com>> wrote:
The suggested way forward seem fine but I would suggest modifying alternative 1 of question 4 by asking for just the "disadvantages" as I don't think there is need to ask for advantages since the goal of the question is to identify issues (okay problems - just playing around with words).
Regards PS: Can't remember if I have posting rights. Otherwise, kindly help forward to list.
Sent from my LG G4 Kindly excuse brevity and typos
On 30 Dec 2016 8:27 a.m., "Greg Shatan" <gregshatanipc@gmail.com <//e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3agregshatanipc@gmail.com>> wrote:
REMINDER to READ this email and RESPOND, at least with regard to the questionnaire (see attachment). I've slightly revised the email for clarity.
To try and focus this discussion, I'll provide a strawman for how to deal with the alternatives:
Preamble -- Use Alternative 1. Question 1 -- Use Alternative 1. Question 2 -- No change Question 3 -- No change. Question 4 -- Use Alternative 1.
Thank you for your responses.
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: *Greg Shatan* <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> Date: Tue, Dec 27, 2016 at 3:28 PM Subject: Focus, Working Method and Revisions to Proposed Questions: RESPONSE REQUESTED [was: Jurisdiction Proposed Questions and Poll Results] To: ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org <//e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3aws2%2djurisdiction@icann.org>
All,
I'm sending this to the Jurisdiction subgroup list, since this was initially send to a discussion thread on jurisdiction taking place on the CCWG list.
*Please respond here, rather than there. Thank you.*
Greg
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: *Greg Shatan* <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> Date: Tue, Dec 27, 2016 at 2:56 AM Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] RES: Jurisdiction Proposed Questions and Poll Results To: "accountability-cross-community@icann.org <//e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3aaccountability%2dcross%2dcommunity@icann.org>" <accountability-cross-community@icann.org <//e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3aaccountability%2dcross%2dcommunity@icann.org>>
All:
Two quick but important points:
1. We have strayed from the basic topic in front of us, which is to decide on the formulation of the questions to be sent out. * I have gone through the emails and meeting notes and pulled the alternative formulations and revisions in to a single document, attached to this email. *
With regard to question 4, I believe that the best way to move forward is to see if one of the alternatives gets stronger support within the CCWG. If we can get to a point where there is broad support for the question without significant opposition that may resolve issues relating to whether and when this question will be sent out.
2. Our overall agreed-upon working method is to first identify, discuss and arrive at a list of problems , and then move on to identifying, discussing and arriving at a list of potential remedies for each problem on our list. We are still working on problems . For a remedy to be up for discussion when we move to discussing remedies, that remedy needs to provide a solution to a problem . We can't discuss a potential remedy without having a problem it is intended to solve. If there is a potential "remedy" but it does not solve any of our problems , we won't discuss it.
We've already put aside one potential "remedy" until we see whether we identify any problems it would solve -- the "remedy" of changing ICANN's jurisdiction of incorporation or headquarters location. "Immunity" is another potential remedy that we need to deal with the same way. Skipping forward to discussions of remedies is only slowing down our discussion of problems . I strongly suggest we refocus on problems , so that we can get to the discussion of remedies. Once we've agreed on a list of problems , a discussion of remedies will be more productive.
Our working method of dealing with problems first and then remedies may also help us find agreement on a way to deal with question 4. Questions 1-3 clearly deal with issues. Perhaps a version of question 4 that is limited to asking for problems will get broader support ("Alternative 1" on the attachment may fit this description.)
Greg
_The following responses were received on the Accountability list_:
*Parminder*: Greg/ All
I think the Alternative 1, which you take as likely candidate for broader support, is fine. I list this formulation below:
What are the advantages or disadvantages, if any, relating to ICANN's jurisdiction*, particularly with regard to the actual operation of ICANN’s policies and accountability mechanisms? Please support your response with appropriate examples, references to specific laws, case studies, other studies, and analysis. In particular, please indicate if there are current or past instances that highlight such advantages or problems.
(* For these questions, “ICANN’s jurisdiction” refers to (a) ICANN being subject to U.S. and California law as a result of its incorporation and location in California, (b) ICANN being subject to the laws of any other country as a result of its location within or contacts with that country, or (c) any “choice of law” or venue provisions in agreements with ICANN.)
ENDS
Lets move on with it. We are spending too much time on framing a question.
*Kavouss Arasteh: * Grec, Tks again, As I said I believe ,it is counter productive to discuss many alternative, I could agree with formulation of Parminder Regards Kavouss
*Sam Lanfranco:* Greg,
Thank you for presenting alternatives for reaching agreement on a/ Roadmap for Moving Forward to identify operational issues embedded in the overall “jurisdiction” issue/. It is important to recognize that what is being proposed is the choice of roadmap for moving forward. Where this takes us will flow from the assembly of evidence, the application of analysis, and the resulting array of possible options for addressing jurisdiction base operational issues.
Sam Lanfranco* *
_______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org <//e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3aWs2%2djurisdiction@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
_______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org </compose?To=Ws2%2djurisdiction@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
-- ------------ Matthew Shears Global Internet Policy and Human Rights Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT) + 44 771 2472987
_______________________________________________ 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 Grec, I have a medical engagement on 05 January at 19,00 UTC hours . Our last meeting was 19,00 UTS ,if I remember correctly. This time why not you coordinate to alternate to 05,00 OR 13,00 UTC . As you know I am very much interested .Unless I am candidate to be prevented to attend , pls changé the meeting time to any of the two period .Regards Kavouss 2017-01-02 10:03 GMT+01:00 parminder <parminder@itforchange.net>:
This is regarding the Jurisdiction sub group Meeting #15 (*5 January @ 19:00 UTC*) .
The last meeting on 19th Dec was also at 1900 UTC. Did we not agree to alternate between 1900 and 1300 UTC?
Chair, I request, accordingly, to change the time.
parminder
On Monday 02 January 2017 09:38 AM, parminder wrote:
Paul and Matthew
No one here has objected to asking about problems (or benefits) of any alternative jurisdictional option. Please add them where you want to in the questions. In fact, the question 1 already says advantages and disadvantages of ICANN jurisdiction, which terms always mean 'with respect to possible alternatives', but I will be happy to explicitly add to it advantages and disadvantages of any alternative jurisdictional options. But please let us move on.
parminder
On Sunday 01 January 2017 11:32 PM, matthew shears wrote:
+ 1 Paul
On 31/12/2016 18:20, Paul Rosenzweig wrote:
Actually, this is a good example of why I don't think this question is helpful. Not because I object to the solution space (as Avri says some may) but because this question is not designed to get us to the solution space that might exist. Asking only about problems or issues with respect to the jurisdiction of incorporation ignores the question of benefits. asking about problems only is like asking me what I dislike about my wife, and not taking into account all the many myriad things I like about her. :-)
And, as I've said before, the question as formulated also ignores the issue of whether any other Jurisidction might be an improvement or not. It is easy to discount the value of my own wife for a hypothetical beauty -- but in the real world, the choices are not hypothetical. Unless we ask about benefits that have arisen from the current jursidiction; and also experiences with other potential venues, this question is just a way of collecting complaints about American juridiction.
So, while I completely understand why Seun would make this suggestion and while, from one perspective, it is a sensible one, it is just a good example of why this question is so fraught.
Happy new year all Paul
-- Paul Rosenzweig Sent from myMail app for Android Friday, 30 December 2016, 00:20PM -05:00 from Greg Shatan gregshatanipc@gmail.com:
I am forwarding the following message from Seun Ojedeji to the Jurisdiction list, as he currently has Observer status and cannot post.
Greg
On Fri, Dec 30, 2016 at 2:37 AM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com <https://e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3aseun.ojedeji@gmail.com>> wrote:
The suggested way forward seem fine but I would suggest modifying alternative 1 of question 4 by asking for just the "disadvantages" as I don't think there is need to ask for advantages since the goal of the question is to identify issues (okay problems - just playing around with words).
Regards PS: Can't remember if I have posting rights. Otherwise, kindly help forward to list.
Sent from my LG G4 Kindly excuse brevity and typos
On 30 Dec 2016 8:27 a.m., "Greg Shatan" <gregshatanipc@gmail.com <https://e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3agregshatanipc@gmail.com>> wrote:
REMINDER to READ this email and RESPOND, at least with regard to the questionnaire (see attachment). I've slightly revised the email for clarity.
To try and focus this discussion, I'll provide a strawman for how to deal with the alternatives:
Preamble -- Use Alternative 1. Question 1 -- Use Alternative 1. Question 2 -- No change Question 3 -- No change. Question 4 -- Use Alternative 1.
Thank you for your responses.
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: *Greg Shatan* <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> Date: Tue, Dec 27, 2016 at 3:28 PM Subject: Focus, Working Method and Revisions to Proposed Questions: RESPONSE REQUESTED [was: Jurisdiction Proposed Questions and Poll Results] To: ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org <https://e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3aws2%2djurisdiction@icann.org>
All,
I'm sending this to the Jurisdiction subgroup list, since this was initially send to a discussion thread on jurisdiction taking place on the CCWG list.
*Please respond here, rather than there. Thank you.*
Greg
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: *Greg Shatan* <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> Date: Tue, Dec 27, 2016 at 2:56 AM Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] RES: Jurisdiction Proposed Questions and Poll Results To: "accountability-cross-community@icann.org" <accountability-cross- community@icann.org>
All:
Two quick but important points:
1. We have strayed from the basic topic in front of us, which is to decide on the formulation of the questions to be sent out. * I have gone through the emails and meeting notes and pulled the alternative formulations and revisions in to a single document, attached to this email. *
With regard to question 4, I believe that the best way to move forward is to see if one of the alternatives gets stronger support within the CCWG. If we can get to a point where there is broad support for the question without significant opposition that may resolve issues relating to whether and when this question will be sent out.
2. Our overall agreed-upon working method is to first identify, discuss and arrive at a list of problems , and then move on to identifying, discussing and arriving at a list of potential remedies for each problem on our list. We are still working on problems . For a remedy to be up for discussion when we move to discussing remedies, that remedy needs to provide a solution to a problem . We can't discuss a potential remedy without having a problem it is intended to solve. If there is a potential "remedy" but it does not solve any of our problems , we won't discuss it.
We've already put aside one potential "remedy" until we see whether we identify any problems it would solve -- the "remedy" of changing ICANN's jurisdiction of incorporation or headquarters location. "Immunity" is another potential remedy that we need to deal with the same way. Skipping forward to discussions of remedies is only slowing down our discussion of problems . I strongly suggest we refocus on problems , so that we can get to the discussion of remedies. Once we've agreed on a list of problems , a discussion of remedies will be more productive.
Our working method of dealing with problems first and then remedies may also help us find agreement on a way to deal with question 4. Questions 1-3 clearly deal with issues. Perhaps a version of question 4 that is limited to asking for problems will get broader support ("Alternative 1" on the attachment may fit this description.)
Greg
*The following responses were received on the Accountability list*:
*Parminder*: Greg/ All
I think the Alternative 1, which you take as likely candidate for broader support, is fine. I list this formulation below:
What are the advantages or disadvantages, if any, relating to ICANN's jurisdiction*, particularly with regard to the actual operation of ICANN’s policies and accountability mechanisms? Please support your response with appropriate examples, references to specific laws, case studies, other studies, and analysis. In particular, please indicate if there are current or past instances that highlight such advantages or problems.
(* For these questions, “ICANN’s jurisdiction” refers to (a) ICANN being subject to U.S. and California law as a result of its incorporation and location in California, (b) ICANN being subject to the laws of any other country as a result of its location within or contacts with that country, or (c) any “choice of law” or venue provisions in agreements with ICANN.) ENDS
Lets move on with it. We are spending too much time on framing a question.
*Kavouss Arasteh: * Grec, Tks again, As I said I believe ,it is counter productive to discuss many alternative, I could agree with formulation of Parminder Regards Kavouss
*Sam Lanfranco:* Greg,
Thank you for presenting alternatives for reaching agreement on a* Roadmap for Moving Forward to identify operational issues embedded in the overall “jurisdiction” issue*. It is important to recognize that what is being proposed is the choice of roadmap for moving forward. Where this takes us will flow from the assembly of evidence, the application of analysis, and the resulting array of possible options for addressing jurisdiction base operational issues.
Sam Lanfranco
<https://e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3aaccountability%2dcross%2dcommun...> <https://e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3aaccountability%2dcross%2dcommun...>
_______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org <https://e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3aWs2%2djurisdiction@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
_______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org <https://e-aj.my.com/compose?To=Ws2%2djurisdiction@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
_______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing listWs2-jurisdiction@icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
<gregshatanipc@gmail.com>
-- ------------ Matthew Shears Global Internet Policy and Human Rights Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)+ 44 771 2472987 <+44%207712%20472987>
_______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing listWs2-jurisdiction@icann.orghttps://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
A rotation needs to be pragmatic, based on slot availability, vacation weeks, etc. As such, some repeating is likely to occur over time. The next *5* calls were scheduled, alternating between 13:00 and 19:00, as follows: January 5: 19:00 (announcement sent 16 Dec) January 10: 13:00 (sent 16 Dec) January 20: 19:00 (sent 19 Dec) January 24: 13:00 (sent 16 Dec) January 30: 19:00 (not yet sent) There are no alternative slots available in the week of the January 20 meeting, so we will either meet then or not at all. We could re-schedule Thursday's call to 13:00 UTC, but then we will have 2 13:00 slots in a row (Jan 5 & 10). We could move the 10 Jan call to 19:00 on Jan 9 (Jan 10 not available), but then we will 2 19:00 slots in a row (Jan 9 & 20). I had taken this into account in scheduling January's meetings, and the schedule we have seemed the most reasonable, especially since concerns about having 2 slots in a row at the same time seemed less significant when those calls were two weeks apart (as they would be if no meetings were skipped). Of course, no one wants to exclude any participant. However, it may be that other participants duly took into account the calendar items distributed on 16 December and have made plans accordingly. We need to respect their schedules as well, particularly since they did take the subgroup's schedule into account. Before taking any action, I need to ask: *Is there any participant who could NOT attend a 13:00 call on 5 January who would be able to attend the currently scheduled 19:00 call?* *Since repeating a time slot is inevitable, should we move the 10 January slot to 9 January at 19:00 if we move the 5 January call to 13:00, as a "trade-off"?* Please respond as quickly as possible. Thank you. Greg On Mon, Jan 2, 2017 at 4:35 AM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Grec, I have a medical engagement on 05 January at 19,00 UTC hours . Our last meeting was 19,00 UTS ,if I remember correctly. This time why not you coordinate to alternate to 05,00 OR 13,00 UTC . As you know I am very much interested .Unless I am candidate to be prevented to attend , pls changé the meeting time to any of the two period .Regards Kavouss
2017-01-02 10:03 GMT+01:00 parminder <parminder@itforchange.net>:
This is regarding the Jurisdiction sub group Meeting #15 (*5 January @ 19:00 UTC*) .
The last meeting on 19th Dec was also at 1900 UTC. Did we not agree to alternate between 1900 and 1300 UTC?
Chair, I request, accordingly, to change the time.
parminder
On Monday 02 January 2017 09:38 AM, parminder wrote:
Paul and Matthew
No one here has objected to asking about problems (or benefits) of any alternative jurisdictional option. Please add them where you want to in the questions. In fact, the question 1 already says advantages and disadvantages of ICANN jurisdiction, which terms always mean 'with respect to possible alternatives', but I will be happy to explicitly add to it advantages and disadvantages of any alternative jurisdictional options. But please let us move on.
parminder
On Sunday 01 January 2017 11:32 PM, matthew shears wrote:
+ 1 Paul
On 31/12/2016 18:20, Paul Rosenzweig wrote:
Actually, this is a good example of why I don't think this question is helpful. Not because I object to the solution space (as Avri says some may) but because this question is not designed to get us to the solution space that might exist. Asking only about problems or issues with respect to the jurisdiction of incorporation ignores the question of benefits. asking about problems only is like asking me what I dislike about my wife, and not taking into account all the many myriad things I like about her. :-)
And, as I've said before, the question as formulated also ignores the issue of whether any other Jurisidction might be an improvement or not. It is easy to discount the value of my own wife for a hypothetical beauty -- but in the real world, the choices are not hypothetical. Unless we ask about benefits that have arisen from the current jursidiction; and also experiences with other potential venues, this question is just a way of collecting complaints about American juridiction.
So, while I completely understand why Seun would make this suggestion and while, from one perspective, it is a sensible one, it is just a good example of why this question is so fraught.
Happy new year all Paul
-- Paul Rosenzweig Sent from myMail app for Android Friday, 30 December 2016, 00:20PM -05:00 from Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com>gregshatanipc@gmail.com:
I am forwarding the following message from Seun Ojedeji to the Jurisdiction list, as he currently has Observer status and cannot post.
Greg
On Fri, Dec 30, 2016 at 2:37 AM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com <https://e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3aseun.ojedeji@gmail.com>> wrote:
The suggested way forward seem fine but I would suggest modifying alternative 1 of question 4 by asking for just the "disadvantages" as I don't think there is need to ask for advantages since the goal of the question is to identify issues (okay problems - just playing around with words).
Regards PS: Can't remember if I have posting rights. Otherwise, kindly help forward to list.
Sent from my LG G4 Kindly excuse brevity and typos
On 30 Dec 2016 8:27 a.m., "Greg Shatan" <gregshatanipc@gmail.com <https://e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3agregshatanipc@gmail.com>> wrote:
REMINDER to READ this email and RESPOND, at least with regard to the questionnaire (see attachment). I've slightly revised the email for clarity.
To try and focus this discussion, I'll provide a strawman for how to deal with the alternatives:
Preamble -- Use Alternative 1. Question 1 -- Use Alternative 1. Question 2 -- No change Question 3 -- No change. Question 4 -- Use Alternative 1.
Thank you for your responses.
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: *Greg Shatan* < <gregshatanipc@gmail.com>gregshatanipc@gmail.com> Date: Tue, Dec 27, 2016 at 3:28 PM Subject: Focus, Working Method and Revisions to Proposed Questions: RESPONSE REQUESTED [was: Jurisdiction Proposed Questions and Poll Results] To: ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org <https://e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3aws2%2djurisdiction@icann.org>
All,
I'm sending this to the Jurisdiction subgroup list, since this was initially send to a discussion thread on jurisdiction taking place on the CCWG list.
*Please respond here, rather than there. Thank you.*
Greg
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: *Greg Shatan* < <gregshatanipc@gmail.com>gregshatanipc@gmail.com> Date: Tue, Dec 27, 2016 at 2:56 AM Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] RES: Jurisdiction Proposed Questions and Poll Results To: " <https://e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3aaccountability%2dcross%2dcommun...> accountability-cross-community@icann.org" < <https://e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3aaccountability%2dcross%2dcommun...> accountability-cross-community@icann.org>
All:
Two quick but important points:
1. We have strayed from the basic topic in front of us, which is to decide on the formulation of the questions to be sent out. * I have gone through the emails and meeting notes and pulled the alternative formulations and revisions in to a single document, attached to this email. *
With regard to question 4, I believe that the best way to move forward is to see if one of the alternatives gets stronger support within the CCWG. If we can get to a point where there is broad support for the question without significant opposition that may resolve issues relating to whether and when this question will be sent out.
2. Our overall agreed-upon working method is to first identify, discuss and arrive at a list of problems , and then move on to identifying, discussing and arriving at a list of potential remedies for each problem on our list. We are still working on problems . For a remedy to be up for discussion when we move to discussing remedies, that remedy needs to provide a solution to a problem . We can't discuss a potential remedy without having a problem it is intended to solve. If there is a potential "remedy" but it does not solve any of our problems , we won't discuss it.
We've already put aside one potential "remedy" until we see whether we identify any problems it would solve -- the "remedy" of changing ICANN's jurisdiction of incorporation or headquarters location. "Immunity" is another potential remedy that we need to deal with the same way. Skipping forward to discussions of remedies is only slowing down our discussion of problems . I strongly suggest we refocus on problems , so that we can get to the discussion of remedies. Once we've agreed on a list of problems , a discussion of remedies will be more productive.
Our working method of dealing with problems first and then remedies may also help us find agreement on a way to deal with question 4. Questions 1-3 clearly deal with issues. Perhaps a version of question 4 that is limited to asking for problems will get broader support ("Alternative 1" on the attachment may fit this description.)
Greg
*The following responses were received on the Accountability list*:
*Parminder*: Greg/ All
I think the Alternative 1, which you take as likely candidate for broader support, is fine. I list this formulation below:
What are the advantages or disadvantages, if any, relating to ICANN's jurisdiction*, particularly with regard to the actual operation of ICANN’s policies and accountability mechanisms? Please support your response with appropriate examples, references to specific laws, case studies, other studies, and analysis. In particular, please indicate if there are current or past instances that highlight such advantages or problems.
(* For these questions, “ICANN’s jurisdiction” refers to (a) ICANN being subject to U.S. and California law as a result of its incorporation and location in California, (b) ICANN being subject to the laws of any other country as a result of its location within or contacts with that country, or (c) any “choice of law” or venue provisions in agreements with ICANN.) ENDS
Lets move on with it. We are spending too much time on framing a question.
*Kavouss Arasteh: * Grec, Tks again, As I said I believe ,it is counter productive to discuss many alternative, I could agree with formulation of Parminder Regards Kavouss
*Sam Lanfranco:* Greg,
Thank you for presenting alternatives for reaching agreement on a* Roadmap for Moving Forward to identify operational issues embedded in the overall “jurisdiction” issue*. It is important to recognize that what is being proposed is the choice of roadmap for moving forward. Where this takes us will flow from the assembly of evidence, the application of analysis, and the resulting array of possible options for addressing jurisdiction base operational issues.
Sam Lanfranco
_______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org <https://e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3aWs2%2djurisdiction@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
_______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org <https://e-aj.my.com/compose?To=Ws2%2djurisdiction@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
_______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing listWs2-jurisdiction@icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
-- ------------ Matthew Shears Global Internet Policy and Human Rights Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)+ 44 771 2472987 <+44%207712%20472987>
_______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing listWs2-jurisdiction@icann.orghttps://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
Dear Grec, Thank you very much for your effort. *10 January slot to 9 January at 19:00 if we move the 5 January call to 13:00, as a "trade-off"?* *That is fine pls kindly convince others to collaborate.* *Regards* *Kavouss * 2017-01-02 20:40 GMT+01:00 Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com>:
A rotation needs to be pragmatic, based on slot availability, vacation weeks, etc. As such, some repeating is likely to occur over time.
The next *5* calls were scheduled, alternating between 13:00 and 19:00, as follows:
January 5: 19:00 (announcement sent 16 Dec) January 10: 13:00 (sent 16 Dec) January 20: 19:00 (sent 19 Dec) January 24: 13:00 (sent 16 Dec) January 30: 19:00 (not yet sent)
There are no alternative slots available in the week of the January 20 meeting, so we will either meet then or not at all. We could re-schedule Thursday's call to 13:00 UTC, but then we will have 2 13:00 slots in a row (Jan 5 & 10). We could move the 10 Jan call to 19:00 on Jan 9 (Jan 10 not available), but then we will 2 19:00 slots in a row (Jan 9 & 20). I had taken this into account in scheduling January's meetings, and the schedule we have seemed the most reasonable, especially since concerns about having 2 slots in a row at the same time seemed less significant when those calls were two weeks apart (as they would be if no meetings were skipped).
Of course, no one wants to exclude any participant. However, it may be that other participants duly took into account the calendar items distributed on 16 December and have made plans accordingly. We need to respect their schedules as well, particularly since they did take the subgroup's schedule into account. Before taking any action, I need to ask:
*Is there any participant who could NOT attend a 13:00 call on 5 January who would be able to attend the currently scheduled 19:00 call?*
*Since repeating a time slot is inevitable, should we move the 10 January slot to 9 January at 19:00 if we move the 5 January call to 13:00, as a "trade-off"?*
Please respond as quickly as possible. Thank you.
Greg
On Mon, Jan 2, 2017 at 4:35 AM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com
wrote:
Dear Grec, I have a medical engagement on 05 January at 19,00 UTC hours . Our last meeting was 19,00 UTS ,if I remember correctly. This time why not you coordinate to alternate to 05,00 OR 13,00 UTC . As you know I am very much interested .Unless I am candidate to be prevented to attend , pls changé the meeting time to any of the two period .Regards Kavouss
2017-01-02 10:03 GMT+01:00 parminder <parminder@itforchange.net>:
This is regarding the Jurisdiction sub group Meeting #15 (*5 January @ 19:00 UTC*) .
The last meeting on 19th Dec was also at 1900 UTC. Did we not agree to alternate between 1900 and 1300 UTC?
Chair, I request, accordingly, to change the time.
parminder
On Monday 02 January 2017 09:38 AM, parminder wrote:
Paul and Matthew
No one here has objected to asking about problems (or benefits) of any alternative jurisdictional option. Please add them where you want to in the questions. In fact, the question 1 already says advantages and disadvantages of ICANN jurisdiction, which terms always mean 'with respect to possible alternatives', but I will be happy to explicitly add to it advantages and disadvantages of any alternative jurisdictional options. But please let us move on.
parminder
On Sunday 01 January 2017 11:32 PM, matthew shears wrote:
+ 1 Paul
On 31/12/2016 18:20, Paul Rosenzweig wrote:
Actually, this is a good example of why I don't think this question is helpful. Not because I object to the solution space (as Avri says some may) but because this question is not designed to get us to the solution space that might exist. Asking only about problems or issues with respect to the jurisdiction of incorporation ignores the question of benefits. asking about problems only is like asking me what I dislike about my wife, and not taking into account all the many myriad things I like about her. :-)
And, as I've said before, the question as formulated also ignores the issue of whether any other Jurisidction might be an improvement or not. It is easy to discount the value of my own wife for a hypothetical beauty -- but in the real world, the choices are not hypothetical. Unless we ask about benefits that have arisen from the current jursidiction; and also experiences with other potential venues, this question is just a way of collecting complaints about American juridiction.
So, while I completely understand why Seun would make this suggestion and while, from one perspective, it is a sensible one, it is just a good example of why this question is so fraught.
Happy new year all Paul
-- Paul Rosenzweig Sent from myMail app for Android Friday, 30 December 2016, 00:20PM -05:00 from Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com>gregshatanipc@gmail.com:
I am forwarding the following message from Seun Ojedeji to the Jurisdiction list, as he currently has Observer status and cannot post.
Greg
On Fri, Dec 30, 2016 at 2:37 AM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com <https://e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3aseun.ojedeji@gmail.com>> wrote:
The suggested way forward seem fine but I would suggest modifying alternative 1 of question 4 by asking for just the "disadvantages" as I don't think there is need to ask for advantages since the goal of the question is to identify issues (okay problems - just playing around with words).
Regards PS: Can't remember if I have posting rights. Otherwise, kindly help forward to list.
Sent from my LG G4 Kindly excuse brevity and typos
On 30 Dec 2016 8:27 a.m., "Greg Shatan" <gregshatanipc@gmail.com <https://e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3agregshatanipc@gmail.com>> wrote:
REMINDER to READ this email and RESPOND, at least with regard to the questionnaire (see attachment). I've slightly revised the email for clarity.
To try and focus this discussion, I'll provide a strawman for how to deal with the alternatives:
Preamble -- Use Alternative 1. Question 1 -- Use Alternative 1. Question 2 -- No change Question 3 -- No change. Question 4 -- Use Alternative 1.
Thank you for your responses.
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: *Greg Shatan* < <gregshatanipc@gmail.com>gregshatanipc@gmail.com> Date: Tue, Dec 27, 2016 at 3:28 PM Subject: Focus, Working Method and Revisions to Proposed Questions: RESPONSE REQUESTED [was: Jurisdiction Proposed Questions and Poll Results] To: ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org <https://e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3aws2%2djurisdiction@icann.org>
All,
I'm sending this to the Jurisdiction subgroup list, since this was initially send to a discussion thread on jurisdiction taking place on the CCWG list.
*Please respond here, rather than there. Thank you.*
Greg
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: *Greg Shatan* < <gregshatanipc@gmail.com>gregshatanipc@gmail.com> Date: Tue, Dec 27, 2016 at 2:56 AM Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] RES: Jurisdiction Proposed Questions and Poll Results To: " <https://e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3aaccountability%2dcross%2dcommun...> accountability-cross-community@icann.org" < <https://e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3aaccountability%2dcross%2dcommun...> accountability-cross-community@icann.org>
All:
Two quick but important points:
1. We have strayed from the basic topic in front of us, which is to decide on the formulation of the questions to be sent out. * I have gone through the emails and meeting notes and pulled the alternative formulations and revisions in to a single document, attached to this email. *
With regard to question 4, I believe that the best way to move forward is to see if one of the alternatives gets stronger support within the CCWG. If we can get to a point where there is broad support for the question without significant opposition that may resolve issues relating to whether and when this question will be sent out.
2. Our overall agreed-upon working method is to first identify, discuss and arrive at a list of problems , and then move on to identifying, discussing and arriving at a list of potential remedies for each problem on our list. We are still working on problems . For a remedy to be up for discussion when we move to discussing remedies, that remedy needs to provide a solution to a problem . We can't discuss a potential remedy without having a problem it is intended to solve. If there is a potential "remedy" but it does not solve any of our problems , we won't discuss it.
We've already put aside one potential "remedy" until we see whether we identify any problems it would solve -- the "remedy" of changing ICANN's jurisdiction of incorporation or headquarters location. "Immunity" is another potential remedy that we need to deal with the same way. Skipping forward to discussions of remedies is only slowing down our discussion of problems . I strongly suggest we refocus on problems , so that we can get to the discussion of remedies. Once we've agreed on a list of problems , a discussion of remedies will be more productive.
Our working method of dealing with problems first and then remedies may also help us find agreement on a way to deal with question 4. Questions 1-3 clearly deal with issues. Perhaps a version of question 4 that is limited to asking for problems will get broader support ("Alternative 1" on the attachment may fit this description.)
Greg
*The following responses were received on the Accountability list*:
*Parminder*: Greg/ All
I think the Alternative 1, which you take as likely candidate for broader support, is fine. I list this formulation below:
What are the advantages or disadvantages, if any, relating to ICANN's jurisdiction*, particularly with regard to the actual operation of ICANN’s policies and accountability mechanisms? Please support your response with appropriate examples, references to specific laws, case studies, other studies, and analysis. In particular, please indicate if there are current or past instances that highlight such advantages or problems.
(* For these questions, “ICANN’s jurisdiction” refers to (a) ICANN being subject to U.S. and California law as a result of its incorporation and location in California, (b) ICANN being subject to the laws of any other country as a result of its location within or contacts with that country, or (c) any “choice of law” or venue provisions in agreements with ICANN.) ENDS
Lets move on with it. We are spending too much time on framing a question.
*Kavouss Arasteh: * Grec, Tks again, As I said I believe ,it is counter productive to discuss many alternative, I could agree with formulation of Parminder Regards Kavouss
*Sam Lanfranco:* Greg,
Thank you for presenting alternatives for reaching agreement on a* Roadmap for Moving Forward to identify operational issues embedded in the overall “jurisdiction” issue*. It is important to recognize that what is being proposed is the choice of roadmap for moving forward. Where this takes us will flow from the assembly of evidence, the application of analysis, and the resulting array of possible options for addressing jurisdiction base operational issues.
Sam Lanfranco
_______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org <https://e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3aWs2%2djurisdiction@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
_______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org <https://e-aj.my.com/compose?To=Ws2%2djurisdiction@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
_______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing listWs2-jurisdiction@icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
-- ------------ Matthew Shears Global Internet Policy and Human Rights Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)+ 44 771 2472987 <+44%207712%20472987>
_______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing listWs2-jurisdiction@icann.orghttps://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
Responses below Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597/Direct 202-559-8750/Fax 202-255-6172/Cell Twitter: @VlawDC "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey From: ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Greg Shatan Sent: Monday, January 02, 2017 2:40 PM To: Kavouss Arasteh Cc: ws2-jurisdiction Subject: Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Online meeting A rotation needs to be pragmatic, based on slot availability, vacation weeks, etc. As such, some repeating is likely to occur over time. The next 5 calls were scheduled, alternating between 13:00 and 19:00, as follows: January 5: 19:00 (announcement sent 16 Dec) January 10: 13:00 (sent 16 Dec) January 20: 19:00 (sent 19 Dec) January 24: 13:00 (sent 16 Dec) January 30: 19:00 (not yet sent) There are no alternative slots available in the week of the January 20 meeting, so we will either meet then or not at all. We could re-schedule Thursday's call to 13:00 UTC, but then we will have 2 13:00 slots in a row (Jan 5 & 10). We could move the 10 Jan call to 19:00 on Jan 9 (Jan 10 not available), but then we will 2 19:00 slots in a row (Jan 9 & 20). I had taken this into account in scheduling January's meetings, and the schedule we have seemed the most reasonable, especially since concerns about having 2 slots in a row at the same time seemed less significant when those calls were two weeks apart (as they would be if no meetings were skipped). Of course, no one wants to exclude any participant. However, it may be that other participants duly took into account the calendar items distributed on 16 December and have made plans accordingly. We need to respect their schedules as well, particularly since they did take the subgroup's schedule into account. Before taking any action, I need to ask: Is there any participant who could NOT attend a 13:00 call on 5 January who would be able to attend the currently scheduled 19:00 call? I can attend at either time Since repeating a time slot is inevitable, should we move the 10 January slot to 9 January at 19:00 if we move the 5 January call to 13:00, as a "trade-off"? No need for a ”trade off” but I can attend at either time Please respond as quickly as possible. Thank you. Greg On Mon, Jan 2, 2017 at 4:35 AM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> wrote: Dear Grec, I have a medical engagement on 05 January at 19,00 UTC hours . Our last meeting was 19,00 UTS ,if I remember correctly. This time why not you coordinate to alternate to 05,00 OR 13,00 UTC . As you know I am very much interested .Unless I am candidate to be prevented to attend , pls changé the meeting time to any of the two period .Regards Kavouss 2017-01-02 10:03 GMT+01:00 parminder <parminder@itforchange.net<mailto:parminder@itforchange.net>>: This is regarding the Jurisdiction sub group Meeting #15 (5 January @ 19:00 UTC) . The last meeting on 19th Dec was also at 1900 UTC. Did we not agree to alternate between 1900 and 1300 UTC? Chair, I request, accordingly, to change the time. parminder On Monday 02 January 2017 09:38 AM, parminder wrote: Paul and Matthew No one here has objected to asking about problems (or benefits) of any alternative jurisdictional option. Please add them where you want to in the questions. In fact, the question 1 already says advantages and disadvantages of ICANN jurisdiction, which terms always mean 'with respect to possible alternatives', but I will be happy to explicitly add to it advantages and disadvantages of any alternative jurisdictional options. But please let us move on. parminder On Sunday 01 January 2017 11:32 PM, matthew shears wrote: + 1 Paul On 31/12/2016 18:20, Paul Rosenzweig wrote: Actually, this is a good example of why I don't think this question is helpful. Not because I object to the solution space (as Avri says some may) but because this question is not designed to get us to the solution space that might exist. Asking only about problems or issues with respect to the jurisdiction of incorporation ignores the question of benefits. asking about problems only is like asking me what I dislike about my wife, and not taking into account all the many myriad things I like about her. :-) And, as I've said before, the question as formulated also ignores the issue of whether any other Jurisidction might be an improvement or not. It is easy to discount the value of my own wife for a hypothetical beauty -- but in the real world, the choices are not hypothetical. Unless we ask about benefits that have arisen from the current jursidiction; and also experiences with other potential venues, this question is just a way of collecting complaints about American juridiction. So, while I completely understand why Seun would make this suggestion and while, from one perspective, it is a sensible one, it is just a good example of why this question is so fraught. Happy new year all Paul -- Paul Rosenzweig Sent from myMail app for Android Friday, 30 December 2016, 00:20PM -05:00 from Greg Shatan gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>: I am forwarding the following message from Seun Ojedeji to the Jurisdiction list, as he currently has Observer status and cannot post. Greg On Fri, Dec 30, 2016 at 2:37 AM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com<https://e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3aseun.ojedeji@gmail.com>> wrote: The suggested way forward seem fine but I would suggest modifying alternative 1 of question 4 by asking for just the "disadvantages" as I don't think there is need to ask for advantages since the goal of the question is to identify issues (okay problems - just playing around with words). Regards PS: Can't remember if I have posting rights. Otherwise, kindly help forward to list. Sent from my LG G4 Kindly excuse brevity and typos On 30 Dec 2016 8:27 a.m., "Greg Shatan" <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<https://e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3agregshatanipc@gmail.com>> wrote: REMINDER to READ this email and RESPOND, at least with regard to the questionnaire (see attachment). I've slightly revised the email for clarity. To try and focus this discussion, I'll provide a strawman for how to deal with the alternatives: Preamble -- Use Alternative 1. Question 1 -- Use Alternative 1. Question 2 -- No change Question 3 -- No change. Question 4 -- Use Alternative 1. Thank you for your responses. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> Date: Tue, Dec 27, 2016 at 3:28 PM Subject: Focus, Working Method and Revisions to Proposed Questions: RESPONSE REQUESTED [was: Jurisdiction Proposed Questions and Poll Results] To: ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org<https://e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3aws2%2djurisdiction@icann.org> All, I'm sending this to the Jurisdiction subgroup list, since this was initially send to a discussion thread on jurisdiction taking place on the CCWG list. Please respond here, rather than there. Thank you. Greg ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> Date: Tue, Dec 27, 2016 at 2:56 AM Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] RES: Jurisdiction Proposed Questions and Poll Results To: "accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>" <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> All: Two quick but important points: 1. We have strayed from the basic topic in front of us, which is to decide on the formulation of the questions to be sent out. I have gone through the emails and meeting notes and pulled the alternative formulations and revisions in to a single document, attached to this email. With regard to question 4, I believe that the best way to move forward is to see if one of the alternatives gets stronger support within the CCWG. If we can get to a point where there is broad support for the question without significant opposition that may resolve issues relating to whether and when this question will be sent out. 2. Our overall agreed-upon working method is to first identify, discuss and arrive at a list of problems , and then move on to identifying, discussing and arriving at a list of potential remedies for each problem on our list. We are still working on problems . For a remedy to be up for discussion when we move to discussing remedies, that remedy needs to provide a solution to a problem . We can't discuss a potential remedy without having a problem it is intended to solve. If there is a potential "remedy" but it does not solve any of our problems , we won't discuss it. We've already put aside one potential "remedy" until we see whether we identify any problems it would solve -- the "remedy" of changing ICANN's jurisdiction of incorporation or headquarters location. "Immunity" is another potential remedy that we need to deal with the same way. Skipping forward to discussions of remedies is only slowing down our discussion of problems . I strongly suggest we refocus on problems , so that we can get to the discussion of remedies. Once we've agreed on a list of problems , a discussion of remedies will be more productive. Our working method of dealing with problems first and then remedies may also help us find agreement on a way to deal with question 4. Questions 1-3 clearly deal with issues. Perhaps a version of question 4 that is limited to asking for problems will get broader support ("Alternative 1" on the attachment may fit this description.) Greg The following responses were received on the Accountability list: Parminder: Greg/ All I think the Alternative 1, which you take as likely candidate for broader support, is fine. I list this formulation below: What are the advantages or disadvantages, if any, relating to ICANN's jurisdiction*, particularly with regard to the actual operation of ICANN’s policies and accountability mechanisms? Please support your response with appropriate examples, references to specific laws, case studies, other studies, and analysis. In particular, please indicate if there are current or past instances that highlight such advantages or problems. (* For these questions, “ICANN’s jurisdiction” refers to (a) ICANN being subject to U.S. and California law as a result of its incorporation and location in California, (b) ICANN being subject to the laws of any other country as a result of its location within or contacts with that country, or (c) any “choice of law” or venue provisions in agreements with ICANN.) ENDS Lets move on with it. We are spending too much time on framing a question. Kavouss Arasteh: Grec, Tks again, As I said I believe ,it is counter productive to discuss many alternative, I could agree with formulation of Parminder Regards Kavouss Sam Lanfranco: Greg, Thank you for presenting alternatives for reaching agreement on a Roadmap for Moving Forward to identify operational issues embedded in the overall “jurisdiction” issue. It is important to recognize that what is being proposed is the choice of roadmap for moving forward. Where this takes us will flow from the assembly of evidence, the application of analysis, and the resulting array of possible options for addressing jurisdiction base operational issues. Sam Lanfranco _______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org<https://e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3aWs2%2djurisdiction@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction _______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org<https://e-aj.my.com/compose?To=Ws2%2djurisdiction@icann.org> 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 -- ------------ Matthew Shears Global Internet Policy and Human Rights Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT) + 44 771 2472987<tel:+44%207712%20472987> _______________________________________________ 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<mailto:Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> 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 ________________________________ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com> Version: 2016.0.7924 / Virus Database: 4739/13633 - Release Date: 12/22/16 Internal Virus Database is out of date.
Dear Phil, Dear Grec, Deal All, Pls kindly do not mésinterprète what I said. I just shared with you my feeling. If you do not agree with that that is fine. Please kindly do not take it as national or regional view. this is my impression. I regret if you took it differently and sorry for that. Let us work together . In fact I almost agreed with Q4 that Phil has proposed. I supported that two times. Perhaps it may need some refinement,if any. Phil, your contribution was quite helpful and was supported by several people . My point what that some people strongly opposed to Q 4 whereas we do not know whether these questions helps or not . CHEERS Kavouss 2017-01-02 23:05 GMT+01:00 Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com>:
Responses below
*Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal*
*Virtualaw LLC*
*1155 F Street, NW*
*Suite 1050*
*Washington, DC 20004*
*202-559-8597 <(202)%20559-8597>/Direct*
*202-559-8750 <(202)%20559-8750>/Fax*
*202-255-6172 <(202)%20255-6172>/Cell*
*Twitter: @VlawDC*
*"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey*
*From:* ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction- bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Greg Shatan *Sent:* Monday, January 02, 2017 2:40 PM *To:* Kavouss Arasteh *Cc:* ws2-jurisdiction *Subject:* Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Online meeting
A rotation needs to be pragmatic, based on slot availability, vacation weeks, etc. As such, some repeating is likely to occur over time.
The next *5* calls were scheduled, alternating between 13:00 and 19:00, as follows:
January 5: 19:00 (announcement sent 16 Dec)
January 10: 13:00 (sent 16 Dec)
January 20: 19:00 (sent 19 Dec)
January 24: 13:00 (sent 16 Dec)
January 30: 19:00 (not yet sent)
There are no alternative slots available in the week of the January 20 meeting, so we will either meet then or not at all. We could re-schedule Thursday's call to 13:00 UTC, but then we will have 2 13:00 slots in a row (Jan 5 & 10). We could move the 10 Jan call to 19:00 on Jan 9 (Jan 10 not available), but then we will 2 19:00 slots in a row (Jan 9 & 20). I had taken this into account in scheduling January's meetings, and the schedule we have seemed the most reasonable, especially since concerns about having 2 slots in a row at the same time seemed less significant when those calls were two weeks apart (as they would be if no meetings were skipped).
Of course, no one wants to exclude any participant. However, it may be that other participants duly took into account the calendar items distributed on 16 December and have made plans accordingly. We need to respect their schedules as well, particularly since they did take the subgroup's schedule into account. Before taking any action, I need to ask:
*Is there any participant who could NOT attend a 13:00 call on 5 January who would be able to attend the currently scheduled 19:00 call? I can attend at either time*
*Since repeating a time slot is inevitable, should we move the 10 January slot to 9 January at 19:00 if we move the 5 January call to 13:00, as a "trade-off"? No need for a ”trade off” but I can attend at either time*
Please respond as quickly as possible. Thank you.
Greg
On Mon, Jan 2, 2017 at 4:35 AM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Grec,
I have a medical engagement on 05 January at 19,00 UTC hours .
Our last meeting was 19,00 UTS ,if I remember correctly.
This time why not you coordinate to alternate to 05,00 OR 13,00 UTC .
As you know I am very much interested .Unless I am candidate to be prevented to attend , pls changé the meeting time to any of the two period .Regards
Kavouss
2017-01-02 10:03 GMT+01:00 parminder <parminder@itforchange.net>:
This is regarding the Jurisdiction sub group Meeting #15 (*5 January @ 19:00 UTC*) .
The last meeting on 19th Dec was also at 1900 UTC. Did we not agree to alternate between 1900 and 1300 UTC?
Chair, I request, accordingly, to change the time.
parminder
On Monday 02 January 2017 09:38 AM, parminder wrote:
Paul and Matthew
No one here has objected to asking about problems (or benefits) of any alternative jurisdictional option. Please add them where you want to in the questions. In fact, the question 1 already says advantages and disadvantages of ICANN jurisdiction, which terms always mean 'with respect to possible alternatives', but I will be happy to explicitly add to it advantages and disadvantages of any alternative jurisdictional options. But please let us move on.
parminder
On Sunday 01 January 2017 11:32 PM, matthew shears wrote:
+ 1 Paul
On 31/12/2016 18:20, Paul Rosenzweig wrote:
Actually, this is a good example of why I don't think this question is helpful. Not because I object to the solution space (as Avri says some may) but because this question is not designed to get us to the solution space that might exist. Asking only about problems or issues with respect to the jurisdiction of incorporation ignores the question of benefits. asking about problems only is like asking me what I dislike about my wife, and not taking into account all the many myriad things I like about her. :-)
And, as I've said before, the question as formulated also ignores the issue of whether any other Jurisidction might be an improvement or not. It is easy to discount the value of my own wife for a hypothetical beauty -- but in the real world, the choices are not hypothetical. Unless we ask about benefits that have arisen from the current jursidiction; and also experiences with other potential venues, this question is just a way of collecting complaints about American juridiction.
So, while I completely understand why Seun would make this suggestion and while, from one perspective, it is a sensible one, it is just a good example of why this question is so fraught.
Happy new year all Paul
-- Paul Rosenzweig Sent from myMail app for Android
Friday, 30 December 2016, 00:20PM -05:00 from Greg Shatan gregshatanipc@gmail.com:
I am forwarding the following message from Seun Ojedeji to the Jurisdiction list, as he currently has Observer status and cannot post.
Greg
On Fri, Dec 30, 2016 at 2:37 AM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com <https://e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3aseun.ojedeji@gmail.com>> wrote:
The suggested way forward seem fine but I would suggest modifying alternative 1 of question 4 by asking for just the "disadvantages" as I don't think there is need to ask for advantages since the goal of the question is to identify issues (okay problems - just playing around with words).
Regards
PS: Can't remember if I have posting rights. Otherwise, kindly help forward to list.
Sent from my LG G4 Kindly excuse brevity and typos
On 30 Dec 2016 8:27 a.m., "Greg Shatan" <gregshatanipc@gmail.com <https://e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3agregshatanipc@gmail.com>> wrote:
REMINDER to READ this email and RESPOND, at least with regard to the questionnaire (see attachment). I've slightly revised the email for clarity.
To try and focus this discussion, I'll provide a strawman for how to deal with the alternatives:
Preamble -- Use Alternative 1.
Question 1 -- Use Alternative 1.
Question 2 -- No change
Question 3 -- No change.
Question 4 -- Use Alternative 1.
Thank you for your responses.
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: *Greg Shatan* <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> Date: Tue, Dec 27, 2016 at 3:28 PM Subject: Focus, Working Method and Revisions to Proposed Questions: RESPONSE REQUESTED [was: Jurisdiction Proposed Questions and Poll Results] To: ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org <https://e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3aws2%2djurisdiction@icann.org>
All,
I'm sending this to the Jurisdiction subgroup list, since this was initially send to a discussion thread on jurisdiction taking place on the CCWG list.
*Please respond here, rather than there. Thank you.*
Greg
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: *Greg Shatan* <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> Date: Tue, Dec 27, 2016 at 2:56 AM Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] RES: Jurisdiction Proposed Questions and Poll Results To: "accountability-cross-community@icann.org" <accountability-cross- community@icann.org>
All:
Two quick but important points:
1. We have strayed from the basic topic in front of us, which is to decide on the formulation of the questions to be sent out.
**
*I have gone through the emails and meeting notes and pulled the alternative formulations and revisions in to a single document, attached to this email. *
With regard to question 4, I believe that the best way to move forward is to see if one of the alternatives gets stronger support within the CCWG. If we can get to a point where there is broad support for the question without significant opposition that may resolve issues relating to whether and when this question will be sent out.
2. Our overall agreed-upon working method is to first identify, discuss and arrive at a list of
problems
, and then move on to identifying, discussing and arriving at a list of potential remedies for each
problem
on our list. We are still working on
problems
. For a remedy to be up for discussion when we move to discussing remedies, that remedy needs to provide a solution to a
problem
. We can't discuss a potential remedy without having a
problem
it is intended to solve. If there is a potential "remedy" but it does not solve any of our
problems
, we won't discuss it.
We've already put aside one potential "remedy" until we see whether we identify any
problems
it would solve -- the "remedy" of changing ICANN's jurisdiction of incorporation or headquarters location. "Immunity" is another potential remedy that we need to deal with the same way. Skipping forward to discussions of remedies is only slowing down our discussion of
problems
. I strongly suggest we refocus on
problems
, so that we can get to the discussion of remedies. Once we've agreed on a list of
problems
, a discussion of remedies will be more productive.
Our working method of dealing with
problems
first and then remedies may also help us find agreement on a way to deal with question 4. Questions 1-3 clearly deal with issues. Perhaps a version of question 4 that is limited to asking for
problems
will get broader support ("Alternative 1" on the attachment may fit this description.)
Greg
***The following responses were received on the Accountability list*:
*Parminder*:
Greg/ All
I think the Alternative 1, which you take as likely candidate for broader support, is fine. I list this formulation below:
What are the advantages or disadvantages, if any, relating to ICANN's jurisdiction*, particularly with regard to the actual operation of ICANN’s policies and accountability mechanisms? Please support your response with appropriate examples, references to specific laws, case studies, other studies, and analysis. In particular, please indicate if there are current or past instances that highlight such advantages or problems.
(* For these questions, “ICANN’s jurisdiction” refers to (a) ICANN being subject to U.S. and California law as a result of its incorporation and location in California, (b) ICANN being subject to the laws of any other country as a result of its location within or contacts with that country, or (c) any “choice of law” or venue provisions in agreements with ICANN.)
ENDS
Lets move on with it. We are spending too much time on framing a question.
*Kavouss Arasteh: *
Grec,
Tks again,
As I said I believe ,it is counter productive to discuss many alternative,
I could agree with formulation of Parminder
Regards
Kavouss
*Sam Lanfranco:*
Greg,
Thank you for presenting alternatives for reaching agreement on a* Roadmap for Moving Forward to identify operational issues embedded in the overall “jurisdiction” issue*. It is important to recognize that what is being proposed is the choice of roadmap for moving forward. Where this takes us will flow from the assembly of evidence, the application of analysis, and the resulting array of possible options for addressing jurisdiction base operational issues.
Sam Lanfranco
_______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org <https://e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3aWs2%2djurisdiction@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
_______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org <https://e-aj.my.com/compose?To=Ws2%2djurisdiction@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
--
------------
Matthew Shears
Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)
+ 44 771 2472987 <+44%207712%20472987>
_______________________________________________
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
------------------------------
No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2016.0.7924 / Virus Database: 4739/13633 - Release Date: 12/22/16 Internal Virus Database is out of date.
Phil, your contribution was quite helpful and was supported by several people . <<
Thank you for evaluating my suggestion on the basis of its content rather than my nation of citizenship. Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597/Direct 202-559-8750/Fax 202-255-6172/Cell Twitter: @VlawDC "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey From: Kavouss Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2017 3:31 AM To: Phil Corwin Cc: Greg Shatan; ws2-jurisdiction Subject: Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Online meeting Dear Phil, Dear Grec, Deal All, Pls kindly do not mésinterprète what I said. I just shared with you my feeling. If you do not agree with that that is fine. Please kindly do not take it as national or regional view. this is my impression. I regret if you took it differently and sorry for that. Let us work together . In fact I almost agreed with Q4 that Phil has proposed. I supported that two times. Perhaps it may need some refinement,if any. Phil, your contribution was quite helpful and was supported by several people . My point what that some people strongly opposed to Q 4 whereas we do not know whether these questions helps or not . CHEERS Kavouss 2017-01-02 23:05 GMT+01:00 Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com<mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com>>: Responses below Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597<tel:(202)%20559-8597>/Direct 202-559-8750<tel:(202)%20559-8750>/Fax 202-255-6172<tel:(202)%20255-6172>/Cell Twitter: @VlawDC "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey From: ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org<mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org<mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Greg Shatan Sent: Monday, January 02, 2017 2:40 PM To: Kavouss Arasteh Cc: ws2-jurisdiction Subject: Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Online meeting A rotation needs to be pragmatic, based on slot availability, vacation weeks, etc. As such, some repeating is likely to occur over time. The next 5 calls were scheduled, alternating between 13:00 and 19:00, as follows: January 5: 19:00 (announcement sent 16 Dec) January 10: 13:00 (sent 16 Dec) January 20: 19:00 (sent 19 Dec) January 24: 13:00 (sent 16 Dec) January 30: 19:00 (not yet sent) There are no alternative slots available in the week of the January 20 meeting, so we will either meet then or not at all. We could re-schedule Thursday's call to 13:00 UTC, but then we will have 2 13:00 slots in a row (Jan 5 & 10). We could move the 10 Jan call to 19:00 on Jan 9 (Jan 10 not available), but then we will 2 19:00 slots in a row (Jan 9 & 20). I had taken this into account in scheduling January's meetings, and the schedule we have seemed the most reasonable, especially since concerns about having 2 slots in a row at the same time seemed less significant when those calls were two weeks apart (as they would be if no meetings were skipped). Of course, no one wants to exclude any participant. However, it may be that other participants duly took into account the calendar items distributed on 16 December and have made plans accordingly. We need to respect their schedules as well, particularly since they did take the subgroup's schedule into account. Before taking any action, I need to ask: Is there any participant who could NOT attend a 13:00 call on 5 January who would be able to attend the currently scheduled 19:00 call? I can attend at either time Since repeating a time slot is inevitable, should we move the 10 January slot to 9 January at 19:00 if we move the 5 January call to 13:00, as a "trade-off"? No need for a ”trade off” but I can attend at either time Please respond as quickly as possible. Thank you. Greg On Mon, Jan 2, 2017 at 4:35 AM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> wrote: Dear Grec, I have a medical engagement on 05 January at 19,00 UTC hours . Our last meeting was 19,00 UTS ,if I remember correctly. This time why not you coordinate to alternate to 05,00 OR 13,00 UTC . As you know I am very much interested .Unless I am candidate to be prevented to attend , pls changé the meeting time to any of the two period .Regards Kavouss 2017-01-02 10:03 GMT+01:00 parminder <parminder@itforchange.net<mailto:parminder@itforchange.net>>: This is regarding the Jurisdiction sub group Meeting #15 (5 January @ 19:00 UTC) . The last meeting on 19th Dec was also at 1900 UTC. Did we not agree to alternate between 1900 and 1300 UTC? Chair, I request, accordingly, to change the time. parminder On Monday 02 January 2017 09:38 AM, parminder wrote: Paul and Matthew No one here has objected to asking about problems (or benefits) of any alternative jurisdictional option. Please add them where you want to in the questions. In fact, the question 1 already says advantages and disadvantages of ICANN jurisdiction, which terms always mean 'with respect to possible alternatives', but I will be happy to explicitly add to it advantages and disadvantages of any alternative jurisdictional options. But please let us move on. parminder On Sunday 01 January 2017 11:32 PM, matthew shears wrote: + 1 Paul On 31/12/2016 18:20, Paul Rosenzweig wrote: Actually, this is a good example of why I don't think this question is helpful. Not because I object to the solution space (as Avri says some may) but because this question is not designed to get us to the solution space that might exist. Asking only about problems or issues with respect to the jurisdiction of incorporation ignores the question of benefits. asking about problems only is like asking me what I dislike about my wife, and not taking into account all the many myriad things I like about her. :-) And, as I've said before, the question as formulated also ignores the issue of whether any other Jurisidction might be an improvement or not. It is easy to discount the value of my own wife for a hypothetical beauty -- but in the real world, the choices are not hypothetical. Unless we ask about benefits that have arisen from the current jursidiction; and also experiences with other potential venues, this question is just a way of collecting complaints about American juridiction. So, while I completely understand why Seun would make this suggestion and while, from one perspective, it is a sensible one, it is just a good example of why this question is so fraught. Happy new year all Paul -- Paul Rosenzweig Sent from myMail app for Android Friday, 30 December 2016, 00:20PM -05:00 from Greg Shatan gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>: I am forwarding the following message from Seun Ojedeji to the Jurisdiction list, as he currently has Observer status and cannot post. Greg On Fri, Dec 30, 2016 at 2:37 AM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com<https://e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3aseun.ojedeji@gmail.com>> wrote: The suggested way forward seem fine but I would suggest modifying alternative 1 of question 4 by asking for just the "disadvantages" as I don't think there is need to ask for advantages since the goal of the question is to identify issues (okay problems - just playing around with words). Regards PS: Can't remember if I have posting rights. Otherwise, kindly help forward to list. Sent from my LG G4 Kindly excuse brevity and typos On 30 Dec 2016 8:27 a.m., "Greg Shatan" <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<https://e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3agregshatanipc@gmail.com>> wrote: REMINDER to READ this email and RESPOND, at least with regard to the questionnaire (see attachment). I've slightly revised the email for clarity. To try and focus this discussion, I'll provide a strawman for how to deal with the alternatives: Preamble -- Use Alternative 1. Question 1 -- Use Alternative 1. Question 2 -- No change Question 3 -- No change. Question 4 -- Use Alternative 1. Thank you for your responses. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> Date: Tue, Dec 27, 2016 at 3:28 PM Subject: Focus, Working Method and Revisions to Proposed Questions: RESPONSE REQUESTED [was: Jurisdiction Proposed Questions and Poll Results] To: ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org<https://e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3aws2%2djurisdiction@icann.org> All, I'm sending this to the Jurisdiction subgroup list, since this was initially send to a discussion thread on jurisdiction taking place on the CCWG list. Please respond here, rather than there. Thank you. Greg ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> Date: Tue, Dec 27, 2016 at 2:56 AM Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] RES: Jurisdiction Proposed Questions and Poll Results To: "accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>" <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> All: Two quick but important points: 1. We have strayed from the basic topic in front of us, which is to decide on the formulation of the questions to be sent out. I have gone through the emails and meeting notes and pulled the alternative formulations and revisions in to a single document, attached to this email. With regard to question 4, I believe that the best way to move forward is to see if one of the alternatives gets stronger support within the CCWG. If we can get to a point where there is broad support for the question without significant opposition that may resolve issues relating to whether and when this question will be sent out. 2. Our overall agreed-upon working method is to first identify, discuss and arrive at a list of problems , and then move on to identifying, discussing and arriving at a list of potential remedies for each problem on our list. We are still working on problems . For a remedy to be up for discussion when we move to discussing remedies, that remedy needs to provide a solution to a problem . We can't discuss a potential remedy without having a problem it is intended to solve. If there is a potential "remedy" but it does not solve any of our problems , we won't discuss it. We've already put aside one potential "remedy" until we see whether we identify any problems it would solve -- the "remedy" of changing ICANN's jurisdiction of incorporation or headquarters location. "Immunity" is another potential remedy that we need to deal with the same way. Skipping forward to discussions of remedies is only slowing down our discussion of problems . I strongly suggest we refocus on problems , so that we can get to the discussion of remedies. Once we've agreed on a list of problems , a discussion of remedies will be more productive. Our working method of dealing with problems first and then remedies may also help us find agreement on a way to deal with question 4. Questions 1-3 clearly deal with issues. Perhaps a version of question 4 that is limited to asking for problems will get broader support ("Alternative 1" on the attachment may fit this description.) Greg The following responses were received on the Accountability list: Parminder: Greg/ All I think the Alternative 1, which you take as likely candidate for broader support, is fine. I list this formulation below: What are the advantages or disadvantages, if any, relating to ICANN's jurisdiction*, particularly with regard to the actual operation of ICANN’s policies and accountability mechanisms? Please support your response with appropriate examples, references to specific laws, case studies, other studies, and analysis. In particular, please indicate if there are current or past instances that highlight such advantages or problems. (* For these questions, “ICANN’s jurisdiction” refers to (a) ICANN being subject to U.S. and California law as a result of its incorporation and location in California, (b) ICANN being subject to the laws of any other country as a result of its location within or contacts with that country, or (c) any “choice of law” or venue provisions in agreements with ICANN.) ENDS Lets move on with it. We are spending too much time on framing a question. Kavouss Arasteh: Grec, Tks again, As I said I believe ,it is counter productive to discuss many alternative, I could agree with formulation of Parminder Regards Kavouss Sam Lanfranco: Greg, Thank you for presenting alternatives for reaching agreement on a Roadmap for Moving Forward to identify operational issues embedded in the overall “jurisdiction” issue. It is important to recognize that what is being proposed is the choice of roadmap for moving forward. Where this takes us will flow from the assembly of evidence, the application of analysis, and the resulting array of possible options for addressing jurisdiction base operational issues. Sam Lanfranco _______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org<https://e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3aWs2%2djurisdiction@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction _______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org<https://e-aj.my.com/compose?To=Ws2%2djurisdiction@icann.org> 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 -- ------------ Matthew Shears Global Internet Policy and Human Rights Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT) + 44 771 2472987<tel:+44%207712%20472987> _______________________________________________ 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<mailto:Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> 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 ________________________________ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com> Version: 2016.0.7924 / Virus Database: 4739/13633 - Release Date: 12/22/16 Internal Virus Database is out of date. ________________________________ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com> Version: 2016.0.7924 / Virus Database: 4739/13633 - Release Date: 12/22/16 Internal Virus Database is out of date.
Is there any participant who could NOT attend a 13:00 call on 5 January who would be able to attend the currently scheduled 19:00 call? ð I can arrange both slots but would appreciate if it can be clarified very soon because of other commitments to shift around Since repeating a time slot is inevitable, should we move the 10 January slot to 9 January at 19:00 if we move the 5 January call to 13:00, as a "trade-off"? ð I would not be available on Jan 9 at 19 UTC but that should not prevent the move if it enables greater participation.
I prefer 13:00 UTC for the call of 5 January. I don’t care if the call of 10 January is held on 9 January. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tijani BEN JEMAA Executive Director Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations (FMAI) Phone: +216 98 330 114 +216 52 385 114 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Le 2 janv. 2017 à 22:40, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> a écrit :
A rotation needs to be pragmatic, based on slot availability, vacation weeks, etc. As such, some repeating is likely to occur over time.
The next 5 calls were scheduled, alternating between 13:00 and 19:00, as follows:
January 5: 19:00 (announcement sent 16 Dec) January 10: 13:00 (sent 16 Dec) January 20: 19:00 (sent 19 Dec) January 24: 13:00 (sent 16 Dec) January 30: 19:00 (not yet sent)
There are no alternative slots available in the week of the January 20 meeting, so we will either meet then or not at all. We could re-schedule Thursday's call to 13:00 UTC, but then we will have 2 13:00 slots in a row (Jan 5 & 10). We could move the 10 Jan call to 19:00 on Jan 9 (Jan 10 not available), but then we will 2 19:00 slots in a row (Jan 9 & 20). I had taken this into account in scheduling January's meetings, and the schedule we have seemed the most reasonable, especially since concerns about having 2 slots in a row at the same time seemed less significant when those calls were two weeks apart (as they would be if no meetings were skipped).
Of course, no one wants to exclude any participant. However, it may be that other participants duly took into account the calendar items distributed on 16 December and have made plans accordingly. We need to respect their schedules as well, particularly since they did take the subgroup's schedule into account. Before taking any action, I need to ask:
Is there any participant who could NOT attend a 13:00 call on 5 January who would be able to attend the currently scheduled 19:00 call?
Since repeating a time slot is inevitable, should we move the 10 January slot to 9 January at 19:00 if we move the 5 January call to 13:00, as a "trade-off"?
Please respond as quickly as possible. Thank you.
Greg
On Mon, Jan 2, 2017 at 4:35 AM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> wrote: Dear Grec, I have a medical engagement on 05 January at 19,00 UTC hours . Our last meeting was 19,00 UTS ,if I remember correctly. This time why not you coordinate to alternate to 05,00 OR 13,00 UTC . As you know I am very much interested .Unless I am candidate to be prevented to attend , pls changé the meeting time to any of the two period .Regards Kavouss
2017-01-02 10:03 GMT+01:00 parminder <parminder@itforchange.net <mailto:parminder@itforchange.net>>: This is regarding the Jurisdiction sub group Meeting #15 (5 January @ 19:00 UTC) . The last meeting on 19th Dec was also at 1900 UTC. Did we not agree to alternate between 1900 and 1300 UTC?
Chair, I request, accordingly, to change the time.
parminder
On Monday 02 January 2017 09:38 AM, parminder wrote:
Paul and Matthew
No one here has objected to asking about problems (or benefits) of any alternative jurisdictional option. Please add them where you want to in the questions. In fact, the question 1 already says advantages and disadvantages of ICANN jurisdiction, which terms always mean 'with respect to possible alternatives', but I will be happy to explicitly add to it advantages and disadvantages of any alternative jurisdictional options. But please let us move on.
parminder
On Sunday 01 January 2017 11:32 PM, matthew shears wrote:
+ 1 Paul
On 31/12/2016 18:20, Paul Rosenzweig wrote:
Actually, this is a good example of why I don't think this question is helpful. Not because I object to the solution space (as Avri says some may) but because this question is not designed to get us to the solution space that might exist. Asking only about problems or issues with respect to the jurisdiction of incorporation ignores the question of benefits. asking about problems only is like asking me what I dislike about my wife, and not taking into account all the many myriad things I like about her. :-)
And, as I've said before, the question as formulated also ignores the issue of whether any other Jurisidction might be an improvement or not. It is easy to discount the value of my own wife for a hypothetical beauty -- but in the real world, the choices are not hypothetical. Unless we ask about benefits that have arisen from the current jursidiction; and also experiences with other potential venues, this question is just a way of collecting complaints about American juridiction.
So, while I completely understand why Seun would make this suggestion and while, from one perspective, it is a sensible one, it is just a good example of why this question is so fraught.
Happy new year all Paul
-- Paul Rosenzweig Sent from myMail app for Android
Friday, 30 December 2016, 00:20PM -05:00 from Greg Shatan <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>:
I am forwarding the following message from Seun Ojedeji to the Jurisdiction list, as he currently has Observer status and cannot post.
Greg
On Fri, Dec 30, 2016 at 2:37 AM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com <https://e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3aseun.ojedeji@gmail.com>> wrote: The suggested way forward seem fine but I would suggest modifying alternative 1 of question 4 by asking for just the "disadvantages" as I don't think there is need to ask for advantages since the goal of the question is to identify issues (okay problems - just playing around with words).
Regards PS: Can't remember if I have posting rights. Otherwise, kindly help forward to list.
Sent from my LG G4 Kindly excuse brevity and typos
On 30 Dec 2016 8:27 a.m., "Greg Shatan" <gregshatanipc@gmail.com <https://e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3agregshatanipc@gmail.com>> wrote: REMINDER to READ this email and RESPOND, at least with regard to the questionnaire (see attachment). I've slightly revised the email for clarity.
To try and focus this discussion, I'll provide a strawman for how to deal with the alternatives:
Preamble -- Use Alternative 1. Question 1 -- Use Alternative 1. Question 2 -- No change Question 3 -- No change. Question 4 -- Use Alternative 1.
Thank you for your responses.
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Greg Shatan < <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> Date: Tue, Dec 27, 2016 at 3:28 PM Subject: Focus, Working Method and Revisions to Proposed Questions: RESPONSE REQUESTED [was: Jurisdiction Proposed Questions and Poll Results] To: ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org <https://e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3aws2%2djurisdiction@icann.org>
All,
I'm sending this to the Jurisdiction subgroup list, since this was initially send to a discussion thread on jurisdiction taking place on the CCWG list.
Please respond here, rather than there. Thank you.
Greg
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Greg Shatan < <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> Date: Tue, Dec 27, 2016 at 2:56 AM Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] RES: Jurisdiction Proposed Questions and Poll Results To: " <https://e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3aaccountability%2dcross%2dcommunity@icann.org>accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>" < <https://e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3aaccountability%2dcross%2dcommunity@icann.org>accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>>
All:
Two quick but important points:
1. We have strayed from the basic topic in front of us, which is to decide on the formulation of the questions to be sent out. I have gone through the emails and meeting notes and pulled the alternative formulations and revisions in to a single document, attached to this email.
With regard to question 4, I believe that the best way to move forward is to see if one of the alternatives gets stronger support within the CCWG. If we can get to a point where there is broad support for the question without significant opposition that may resolve issues relating to whether and when this question will be sent out.
2. Our overall agreed-upon working method is to first identify, discuss and arrive at a list of problems , and then move on to identifying, discussing and arriving at a list of potential remedies for each problem on our list. We are still working on problems . For a remedy to be up for discussion when we move to discussing remedies, that remedy needs to provide a solution to a problem . We can't discuss a potential remedy without having a problem it is intended to solve. If there is a potential "remedy" but it does not solve any of our problems , we won't discuss it.
We've already put aside one potential "remedy" until we see whether we identify any problems it would solve -- the "remedy" of changing ICANN's jurisdiction of incorporation or headquarters location. "Immunity" is another potential remedy that we need to deal with the same way. Skipping forward to discussions of remedies is only slowing down our discussion of problems . I strongly suggest we refocus on problems , so that we can get to the discussion of remedies. Once we've agreed on a list of problems , a discussion of remedies will be more productive.
Our working method of dealing with problems first and then remedies may also help us find agreement on a way to deal with question 4. Questions 1-3 clearly deal with issues. Perhaps a version of question 4 that is limited to asking for problems will get broader support ("Alternative 1" on the attachment may fit this description.)
Greg
The following responses were received on the Accountability list:
Parminder: Greg/ All I think the Alternative 1, which you take as likely candidate for broader support, is fine. I list this formulation below:
What are the advantages or disadvantages, if any, relating to ICANN's jurisdiction*, particularly with regard to the actual operation of ICANN’s policies and accountability mechanisms? Please support your response with appropriate examples, references to specific laws, case studies, other studies, and analysis. In particular, please indicate if there are current or past instances that highlight such advantages or problems. (* For these questions, “ICANN’s jurisdiction” refers to (a) ICANN being subject to U.S. and California law as a result of its incorporation and location in California, (b) ICANN being subject to the laws of any other country as a result of its location within or contacts with that country, or (c) any “choice of law” or venue provisions in agreements with ICANN.) ENDS
Lets move on with it. We are spending too much time on framing a question.
Kavouss Arasteh: Grec, Tks again, As I said I believe ,it is counter productive to discuss many alternative, I could agree with formulation of Parminder Regards Kavouss
Sam Lanfranco: Greg,
Thank you for presenting alternatives for reaching agreement on a Roadmap for Moving Forward to identify operational issues embedded in the overall “jurisdiction” issue. It is important to recognize that what is being proposed is the choice of roadmap for moving forward. Where this takes us will flow from the assembly of evidence, the application of analysis, and the resulting array of possible options for addressing jurisdiction base operational issues.
Sam Lanfranco
_______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org <https://e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3aWs2%2djurisdiction@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://e-aj.my.com/compose?To=Ws2%2djurisdiction@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>
-- ------------ Matthew Shears Global Internet Policy and Human Rights Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT) + 44 771 2472987 <tel:+44%207712%20472987>
_______________________________________________ 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 https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
Dear All, I also prefer 13,00 UTC on 05 Jan. If you maintain 10 Jan, I prefer 19,00 UTC . If you move 10 Jan to 09 JAN ,I could also make it at 19,00 UTC Regards Kavouss 2017-01-03 12:59 GMT+01:00 Tijani BEN JEMAA <tijani.benjemaa@topnet.tn>:
I prefer 13:00 UTC for the call of 5 January. I don’t care if the call of 10 January is held on 9 January.
------------------------------------------------------------ ----------------- *Tijani BEN JEMAA* Executive Director Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations (*FMAI*) Phone: +216 98 330 114 <+216%2098%20330%20114> +216 52 385 114 <+216%2052%20385%20114> ------------------------------------------------------------ -----------------
Le 2 janv. 2017 à 22:40, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> a écrit :
A rotation needs to be pragmatic, based on slot availability, vacation weeks, etc. As such, some repeating is likely to occur over time.
The next *5* calls were scheduled, alternating between 13:00 and 19:00, as follows:
January 5: 19:00 (announcement sent 16 Dec) January 10: 13:00 (sent 16 Dec) January 20: 19:00 (sent 19 Dec) January 24: 13:00 (sent 16 Dec) January 30: 19:00 (not yet sent)
There are no alternative slots available in the week of the January 20 meeting, so we will either meet then or not at all. We could re-schedule Thursday's call to 13:00 UTC, but then we will have 2 13:00 slots in a row (Jan 5 & 10). We could move the 10 Jan call to 19:00 on Jan 9 (Jan 10 not available), but then we will 2 19:00 slots in a row (Jan 9 & 20). I had taken this into account in scheduling January's meetings, and the schedule we have seemed the most reasonable, especially since concerns about having 2 slots in a row at the same time seemed less significant when those calls were two weeks apart (as they would be if no meetings were skipped).
Of course, no one wants to exclude any participant. However, it may be that other participants duly took into account the calendar items distributed on 16 December and have made plans accordingly. We need to respect their schedules as well, particularly since they did take the subgroup's schedule into account. Before taking any action, I need to ask:
*Is there any participant who could NOT attend a 13:00 call on 5 January who would be able to attend the currently scheduled 19:00 call?*
*Since repeating a time slot is inevitable, should we move the 10 January slot to 9 January at 19:00 if we move the 5 January call to 13:00, as a "trade-off"?*
Please respond as quickly as possible. Thank you.
Greg
On Mon, Jan 2, 2017 at 4:35 AM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com
wrote:
Dear Grec, I have a medical engagement on 05 January at 19,00 UTC hours . Our last meeting was 19,00 UTS ,if I remember correctly. This time why not you coordinate to alternate to 05,00 OR 13,00 UTC . As you know I am very much interested .Unless I am candidate to be prevented to attend , pls changé the meeting time to any of the two period .Regards Kavouss
2017-01-02 10:03 GMT+01:00 parminder <parminder@itforchange.net>:
This is regarding the Jurisdiction sub group Meeting #15 (*5 January @ 19:00 UTC*) .
The last meeting on 19th Dec was also at 1900 UTC. Did we not agree to alternate between 1900 and 1300 UTC?
Chair, I request, accordingly, to change the time.
parminder
On Monday 02 January 2017 09:38 AM, parminder wrote:
Paul and Matthew
No one here has objected to asking about problems (or benefits) of any alternative jurisdictional option. Please add them where you want to in the questions. In fact, the question 1 already says advantages and disadvantages of ICANN jurisdiction, which terms always mean 'with respect to possible alternatives', but I will be happy to explicitly add to it advantages and disadvantages of any alternative jurisdictional options. But please let us move on.
parminder
On Sunday 01 January 2017 11:32 PM, matthew shears wrote:
+ 1 Paul
On 31/12/2016 18:20, Paul Rosenzweig wrote:
Actually, this is a good example of why I don't think this question is helpful. Not because I object to the solution space (as Avri says some may) but because this question is not designed to get us to the solution space that might exist. Asking only about problems or issues with respect to the jurisdiction of incorporation ignores the question of benefits. asking about problems only is like asking me what I dislike about my wife, and not taking into account all the many myriad things I like about her. :-)
And, as I've said before, the question as formulated also ignores the issue of whether any other Jurisidction might be an improvement or not. It is easy to discount the value of my own wife for a hypothetical beauty -- but in the real world, the choices are not hypothetical. Unless we ask about benefits that have arisen from the current jursidiction; and also experiences with other potential venues, this question is just a way of collecting complaints about American juridiction.
So, while I completely understand why Seun would make this suggestion and while, from one perspective, it is a sensible one, it is just a good example of why this question is so fraught.
Happy new year all Paul
-- Paul Rosenzweig Sent from myMail app for Android Friday, 30 December 2016, 00:20PM -05:00 from Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com>gregshatanipc@gmail.com:
I am forwarding the following message from Seun Ojedeji to the Jurisdiction list, as he currently has Observer status and cannot post.
Greg
On Fri, Dec 30, 2016 at 2:37 AM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com <https://e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3aseun.ojedeji@gmail.com>> wrote:
The suggested way forward seem fine but I would suggest modifying alternative 1 of question 4 by asking for just the "disadvantages" as I don't think there is need to ask for advantages since the goal of the question is to identify issues (okay problems - just playing around with words).
Regards PS: Can't remember if I have posting rights. Otherwise, kindly help forward to list.
Sent from my LG G4 Kindly excuse brevity and typos
On 30 Dec 2016 8:27 a.m., "Greg Shatan" <gregshatanipc@gmail.com <https://e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3agregshatanipc@gmail.com>> wrote:
REMINDER to READ this email and RESPOND, at least with regard to the questionnaire (see attachment). I've slightly revised the email for clarity.
To try and focus this discussion, I'll provide a strawman for how to deal with the alternatives:
Preamble -- Use Alternative 1. Question 1 -- Use Alternative 1. Question 2 -- No change Question 3 -- No change. Question 4 -- Use Alternative 1.
Thank you for your responses.
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: *Greg Shatan* < <gregshatanipc@gmail.com>gregshatanipc@gmail.com> Date: Tue, Dec 27, 2016 at 3:28 PM Subject: Focus, Working Method and Revisions to Proposed Questions: RESPONSE REQUESTED [was: Jurisdiction Proposed Questions and Poll Results] To: ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org <https://e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3aws2%2djurisdiction@icann.org>
All,
I'm sending this to the Jurisdiction subgroup list, since this was initially send to a discussion thread on jurisdiction taking place on the CCWG list.
*Please respond here, rather than there. Thank you.*
Greg
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: *Greg Shatan* < <gregshatanipc@gmail.com>gregshatanipc@gmail.com> Date: Tue, Dec 27, 2016 at 2:56 AM Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] RES: Jurisdiction Proposed Questions and Poll Results To: " <https://e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3aaccountability%2dcross%2dcommun...> accountability-cross-community@icann.org" < <https://e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3aaccountability%2dcross%2dcommun...> accountability-cross-community@icann.org>
All:
Two quick but important points:
1. We have strayed from the basic topic in front of us, which is to decide on the formulation of the questions to be sent out. * I have gone through the emails and meeting notes and pulled the alternative formulations and revisions in to a single document, attached to this email. *
With regard to question 4, I believe that the best way to move forward is to see if one of the alternatives gets stronger support within the CCWG. If we can get to a point where there is broad support for the question without significant opposition that may resolve issues relating to whether and when this question will be sent out.
2. Our overall agreed-upon working method is to first identify, discuss and arrive at a list of problems , and then move on to identifying, discussing and arriving at a list of potential remedies for each problem on our list. We are still working on problems . For a remedy to be up for discussion when we move to discussing remedies, that remedy needs to provide a solution to a problem . We can't discuss a potential remedy without having a problem it is intended to solve. If there is a potential "remedy" but it does not solve any of our problems , we won't discuss it.
We've already put aside one potential "remedy" until we see whether we identify any problems it would solve -- the "remedy" of changing ICANN's jurisdiction of incorporation or headquarters location. "Immunity" is another potential remedy that we need to deal with the same way. Skipping forward to discussions of remedies is only slowing down our discussion of problems . I strongly suggest we refocus on problems , so that we can get to the discussion of remedies. Once we've agreed on a list of problems , a discussion of remedies will be more productive.
Our working method of dealing with problems first and then remedies may also help us find agreement on a way to deal with question 4. Questions 1-3 clearly deal with issues. Perhaps a version of question 4 that is limited to asking for problems will get broader support ("Alternative 1" on the attachment may fit this description.)
Greg
*The following responses were received on the Accountability list*:
*Parminder*: Greg/ All
I think the Alternative 1, which you take as likely candidate for broader support, is fine. I list this formulation below:
What are the advantages or disadvantages, if any, relating to ICANN's jurisdiction*, particularly with regard to the actual operation of ICANN’s policies and accountability mechanisms? Please support your response with appropriate examples, references to specific laws, case studies, other studies, and analysis. In particular, please indicate if there are current or past instances that highlight such advantages or problems.
(* For these questions, “ICANN’s jurisdiction” refers to (a) ICANN being subject to U.S. and California law as a result of its incorporation and location in California, (b) ICANN being subject to the laws of any other country as a result of its location within or contacts with that country, or (c) any “choice of law” or venue provisions in agreements with ICANN.) ENDS
Lets move on with it. We are spending too much time on framing a question.
*Kavouss Arasteh: * Grec, Tks again, As I said I believe ,it is counter productive to discuss many alternative, I could agree with formulation of Parminder Regards Kavouss
*Sam Lanfranco:* Greg,
Thank you for presenting alternatives for reaching agreement on a* Roadmap for Moving Forward to identify operational issues embedded in the overall “jurisdiction” issue*. It is important to recognize that what is being proposed is the choice of roadmap for moving forward. Where this takes us will flow from the assembly of evidence, the application of analysis, and the resulting array of possible options for addressing jurisdiction base operational issues.
Sam Lanfranco
_______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org <https://e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3aWs2%2djurisdiction@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
_______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org <https://e-aj.my.com/compose?To=Ws2%2djurisdiction@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
_______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing listWs2-jurisdiction@icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
-- ------------ Matthew Shears Global Internet Policy and Human Rights Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)+ 44 771 2472987 <+44%207712%20472987>
_______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing listWs2-jurisdiction@icann.orghttps://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
Hello Parminder, I thought I was here, or you don't think my view was important as an observer [1] ;-) Anyway if people feel asking for advantages/disadvantages is useful, no problem. I personally just don't see the essence of asking for advantages initially - we cannot exhaust the advantages and we should not do the analysis of the response based on the volume of advantages vs disadvantages - hearing the problems, determining their validity and discussing way forward would be preferred IMO. Regards 1. I am sure you will not like your comment disregarded in such manner as well Sent from my LG G4 Kindly excuse brevity and typos On 2 Jan 2017 5:09 a.m., "parminder" <parminder@itforchange.net> wrote:
Paul and Matthew
No one here has objected to asking about problems (or benefits) of any alternative jurisdictional option. Please add them where you want to in the questions. In fact, the question 1 already says advantages and disadvantages of ICANN jurisdiction, which terms always mean 'with respect to possible alternatives', but I will be happy to explicitly add to it advantages and disadvantages of any alternative jurisdictional options. But please let us move on.
parminder
On Sunday 01 January 2017 11:32 PM, matthew shears wrote:
+ 1 Paul
On 31/12/2016 18:20, Paul Rosenzweig wrote:
Actually, this is a good example of why I don't think this question is helpful. Not because I object to the solution space (as Avri says some may) but because this question is not designed to get us to the solution space that might exist. Asking only about problems or issues with respect to the jurisdiction of incorporation ignores the question of benefits. asking about problems only is like asking me what I dislike about my wife, and not taking into account all the many myriad things I like about her. :-)
And, as I've said before, the question as formulated also ignores the issue of whether any other Jurisidction might be an improvement or not. It is easy to discount the value of my own wife for a hypothetical beauty -- but in the real world, the choices are not hypothetical. Unless we ask about benefits that have arisen from the current jursidiction; and also experiences with other potential venues, this question is just a way of collecting complaints about American juridiction.
So, while I completely understand why Seun would make this suggestion and while, from one perspective, it is a sensible one, it is just a good example of why this question is so fraught.
Happy new year all Paul
-- Paul Rosenzweig Sent from myMail app for Android Friday, 30 December 2016, 00:20PM -05:00 from Greg Shatan gregshatanipc@gmail.com:
I am forwarding the following message from Seun Ojedeji to the Jurisdiction list, as he currently has Observer status and cannot post.
Greg
On Fri, Dec 30, 2016 at 2:37 AM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com <https://e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3aseun.ojedeji@gmail.com>> wrote:
The suggested way forward seem fine but I would suggest modifying alternative 1 of question 4 by asking for just the "disadvantages" as I don't think there is need to ask for advantages since the goal of the question is to identify issues (okay problems - just playing around with words).
Regards PS: Can't remember if I have posting rights. Otherwise, kindly help forward to list.
Sent from my LG G4 Kindly excuse brevity and typos
On 30 Dec 2016 8:27 a.m., "Greg Shatan" <gregshatanipc@gmail.com <https://e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3agregshatanipc@gmail.com>> wrote:
REMINDER to READ this email and RESPOND, at least with regard to the questionnaire (see attachment). I've slightly revised the email for clarity.
To try and focus this discussion, I'll provide a strawman for how to deal with the alternatives:
Preamble -- Use Alternative 1. Question 1 -- Use Alternative 1. Question 2 -- No change Question 3 -- No change. Question 4 -- Use Alternative 1.
Thank you for your responses.
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: *Greg Shatan* <gregshatanipc@gmail.com <https://e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3agregshatanipc@gmail.com>> Date: Tue, Dec 27, 2016 at 3:28 PM Subject: Focus, Working Method and Revisions to Proposed Questions: RESPONSE REQUESTED [was: Jurisdiction Proposed Questions and Poll Results] To: ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org <https://e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3aws2%2djurisdiction@icann.org>
All,
I'm sending this to the Jurisdiction subgroup list, since this was initially send to a discussion thread on jurisdiction taking place on the CCWG list.
*Please respond here, rather than there. Thank you.*
Greg
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: *Greg Shatan* <gregshatanipc@gmail.com <https://e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3agregshatanipc@gmail.com>> Date: Tue, Dec 27, 2016 at 2:56 AM Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] RES: Jurisdiction Proposed Questions and Poll Results To: "accountability-cross-community@icann.org <https://e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3aaccountability%2dcross%2dcommun...>" <accountability-cross-community@icann.org <https://e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3aaccountability%2dcross%2dcommun...>
All:
Two quick but important points:
1. We have strayed from the basic topic in front of us, which is to decide on the formulation of the questions to be sent out. * I have gone through the emails and meeting notes and pulled the alternative formulations and revisions in to a single document, attached to this email. *
With regard to question 4, I believe that the best way to move forward is to see if one of the alternatives gets stronger support within the CCWG. If we can get to a point where there is broad support for the question without significant opposition that may resolve issues relating to whether and when this question will be sent out.
2. Our overall agreed-upon working method is to first identify, discuss and arrive at a list of problems , and then move on to identifying, discussing and arriving at a list of potential remedies for each problem on our list. We are still working on problems . For a remedy to be up for discussion when we move to discussing remedies, that remedy needs to provide a solution to a problem . We can't discuss a potential remedy without having a problem it is intended to solve. If there is a potential "remedy" but it does not solve any of our problems , we won't discuss it.
We've already put aside one potential "remedy" until we see whether we identify any problems it would solve -- the "remedy" of changing ICANN's jurisdiction of incorporation or headquarters location. "Immunity" is another potential remedy that we need to deal with the same way. Skipping forward to discussions of remedies is only slowing down our discussion of problems . I strongly suggest we refocus on problems , so that we can get to the discussion of remedies. Once we've agreed on a list of problems , a discussion of remedies will be more productive.
Our working method of dealing with problems first and then remedies may also help us find agreement on a way to deal with question 4. Questions 1-3 clearly deal with issues. Perhaps a version of question 4 that is limited to asking for problems will get broader support ("Alternative 1" on the attachment may fit this description.)
Greg
*The following responses were received on the Accountability list*:
*Parminder*: Greg/ All
I think the Alternative 1, which you take as likely candidate for broader support, is fine. I list this formulation below:
What are the advantages or disadvantages, if any, relating to ICANN's jurisdiction*, particularly with regard to the actual operation of ICANN’s policies and accountability mechanisms? Please support your response with appropriate examples, references to specific laws, case studies, other studies, and analysis. In particular, please indicate if there are current or past instances that highlight such advantages or problems.
(* For these questions, “ICANN’s jurisdiction” refers to (a) ICANN being subject to U.S. and California law as a result of its incorporation and location in California, (b) ICANN being subject to the laws of any other country as a result of its location within or contacts with that country, or (c) any “choice of law” or venue provisions in agreements with ICANN.) ENDS
Lets move on with it. We are spending too much time on framing a question.
*Kavouss Arasteh: * Grec, Tks again, As I said I believe ,it is counter productive to discuss many alternative, I could agree with formulation of Parminder Regards Kavouss
*Sam Lanfranco:* Greg,
Thank you for presenting alternatives for reaching agreement on a* Roadmap for Moving Forward to identify operational issues embedded in the overall “jurisdiction” issue*. It is important to recognize that what is being proposed is the choice of roadmap for moving forward. Where this takes us will flow from the assembly of evidence, the application of analysis, and the resulting array of possible options for addressing jurisdiction base operational issues.
Sam Lanfranco
_______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org <https://e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3aWs2%2djurisdiction@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
_______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org <https://e-aj.my.com/compose?To=Ws2%2djurisdiction@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
_______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing listWs2-jurisdiction@icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
-- ------------ Matthew Shears Global Internet Policy and Human Rights Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)+ 44 771 2472987 <07712%20472987>
_______________________________________________ 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 Monday 02 January 2017 03:56 PM, Seun Ojedeji wrote:
Hello Parminder,
I thought I was here, or you don't think my view was important as an observer [1] ;-) Anyway if people feel asking for advantages/disadvantages is useful, no problem. I personally just don't see the essence of asking for advantages initially - we cannot exhaust the advantages and we should not do the analysis of the response based on the volume of advantages vs disadvantages - hearing the problems, determining their validity and discussing way forward would be preferred IMO.
Sean, I havent disregarded your views. They in fact clearly and fully correspond to my views, which have been often and amply stated here, which is to look at disadvantages of current jurisdiction, and address them. This includes a full exercise of helping a big civil society group anchor such an analysis in form of a statement. Why do you think I would be a great fan of describing the current jurisdiction's advantages? However, there is a long history to this debate on this list, and many say, mostly those who are for the status quo, that we cant only look at disadvantages and not mention the advantages, and since long I have conceded, sure, no problem, go ahead and do it. This is where I am coming from. What you say correspond to my known position, and thus I found no reason to press it. My email's point was; I am happy to have others add whatever they want to the question - advantages of the current jurisdiction, disadvantages of possible alternatives, whatever. I happy for it to be as complete an inquiry as possible, if it satisfied other people , and we can actually move forward. While my view of course is, and consistently has been, that we must focus on actual problems with the current jurisdiction and explore solutions, which is the way any rational exercise will proceed. To further clarify: I wrote to Paul and Matthew because I opposed their supposition that anyone here is actually against looking at advantages of current jurisdiction. I am not. Although I agree with you that it is unnecessary in this question since the Chairs have said that a this stage we are looking only at issues/ problems, and not solutions (and thus, possible problems with them). But to move things forward I am fine to add that to the question. I did not explicitly mention support to your proposal to remove "advantages" from option 1 of question 4 - though I agree with it -- becuase I see that the other side wont agree to it, and having conceded the point earlier, did not want to open up another front on this dispute on mere questions that has stopped us from any progress for almost a month now. As a matter of record though, let me state that, I support Seun's proposal to remove "advantages" from option 1 of 4.
Regards 1. I am sure you will not like your comment disregarded in such manner as well
Seun, it is not as if you have been "regarding" and responding to every of my posting on the CCWG :), even when it clearly evoked Southern participants. But as you see above, I havent disregarded your posting. Hope for closer engagement from now on :) parminder
Sent from my LG G4 Kindly excuse brevity and typos
On 2 Jan 2017 5:09 a.m., "parminder" <parminder@itforchange.net <mailto:parminder@itforchange.net>> wrote:
Paul and Matthew
No one here has objected to asking about problems (or benefits) of any alternative jurisdictional option. Please add them where you want to in the questions. In fact, the question 1 already says advantages and disadvantages of ICANN jurisdiction, which terms always mean 'with respect to possible alternatives', but I will be happy to explicitly add to it advantages and disadvantages of any alternative jurisdictional options. But please let us move on.
parminder
On Sunday 01 January 2017 11:32 PM, matthew shears wrote:
+ 1 Paul
On 31/12/2016 18:20, Paul Rosenzweig wrote:
Actually, this is a good example of why I don't think this question is helpful. Not because I object to the solution space (as Avri says some may) but because this question is not designed to get us to the solution space that might exist. Asking only about problems or issues with respect to the jurisdiction of incorporation ignores the question of benefits. asking about problems only is like asking me what I dislike about my wife, and not taking into account all the many myriad things I like about her. :-)
And, as I've said before, the question as formulated also ignores the issue of whether any other Jurisidction might be an improvement or not. It is easy to discount the value of my own wife for a hypothetical beauty -- but in the real world, the choices are not hypothetical. Unless we ask about benefits that have arisen from the current jursidiction; and also experiences with other potential venues, this question is just a way of collecting complaints about American juridiction.
So, while I completely understand why Seun would make this suggestion and while, from one perspective, it is a sensible one, it is just a good example of why this question is so fraught.
Happy new year all Paul
-- Paul Rosenzweig Sent from myMail app for Android
Friday, 30 December 2016, 00:20PM -05:00 from Greg Shatan gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>:
I am forwarding the following message from Seun Ojedeji to the Jurisdiction list, as he currently has Observer status and cannot post.
Greg
On Fri, Dec 30, 2016 at 2:37 AM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com <https://e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3aseun.ojedeji@gmail.com>> wrote:
The suggested way forward seem fine but I would suggest modifying alternative 1 of question 4 by asking for just the "disadvantages" as I don't think there is need to ask for advantages since the goal of the question is to identify issues (okay problems - just playing around with words).
Regards PS: Can't remember if I have posting rights. Otherwise, kindly help forward to list.
Sent from my LG G4 Kindly excuse brevity and typos
On 30 Dec 2016 8:27 a.m., "Greg Shatan" <gregshatanipc@gmail.com <https://e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3agregshatanipc@gmail.com>> wrote:
REMINDER to READ this email and RESPOND, at least with regard to the questionnaire (see attachment). I've slightly revised the email for clarity.
To try and focus this discussion, I'll provide a strawman for how to deal with the alternatives:
Preamble -- Use Alternative 1. Question 1 -- Use Alternative 1. Question 2 -- No change Question 3 -- No change. Question 4 -- Use Alternative 1.
Thank you for your responses.
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: *Greg Shatan* <gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> Date: Tue, Dec 27, 2016 at 3:28 PM Subject: Focus, Working Method and Revisions to Proposed Questions: RESPONSE REQUESTED [was: Jurisdiction Proposed Questions and Poll Results] To: ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org <https://e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3aws2%2djurisdiction@icann.org>
All,
I'm sending this to the Jurisdiction subgroup list, since this was initially send to a discussion thread on jurisdiction taking place on the CCWG list.
*Please respond here, rather than there. Thank you.*
Greg
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: *Greg Shatan* <gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> Date: Tue, Dec 27, 2016 at 2:56 AM Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] RES: Jurisdiction Proposed Questions and Poll Results To: "accountability-cross-community@icann.org <https://e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3aaccountability%2dcross%2dcommun...>" <accountability-cross-community@icann.org <https://e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3aaccountability%2dcross%2dcommunity@icann.org>>
All:
Two quick but important points:
1. We have strayed from the basic topic in front of us, which is to decide on the formulation of the questions to be sent out. * I have gone through the emails and meeting notes and pulled the alternative formulations and revisions in to a single document, attached to this email. *
With regard to question 4, I believe that the best way to move forward is to see if one of the alternatives gets stronger support within the CCWG. If we can get to a point where there is broad support for the question without significant opposition that may resolve issues relating to whether and when this question will be sent out.
2. Our overall agreed-upon working method is to first identify, discuss and arrive at a list of problems , and then move on to identifying, discussing and arriving at a list of potential remedies for each problem on our list. We are still working on problems . For a remedy to be up for discussion when we move to discussing remedies, that remedy needs to provide a solution to a problem . We can't discuss a potential remedy without having a problem it is intended to solve. If there is a potential "remedy" but it does not solve any of our problems , we won't discuss it.
We've already put aside one potential "remedy" until we see whether we identify any problems it would solve -- the "remedy" of changing ICANN's jurisdiction of incorporation or headquarters location. "Immunity" is another potential remedy that we need to deal with the same way. Skipping forward to discussions of remedies is only slowing down our discussion of problems . I strongly suggest we refocus on problems , so that we can get to the discussion of remedies. Once we've agreed on a list of problems , a discussion of remedies will be more productive.
Our working method of dealing with problems first and then remedies may also help us find agreement on a way to deal with question 4. Questions 1-3 clearly deal with issues. Perhaps a version of question 4 that is limited to asking for problems will get broader support ("Alternative 1" on the attachment may fit this description.)
Greg
_The following responses were received on the Accountability list_:
*Parminder*: Greg/ All
I think the Alternative 1, which you take as likely candidate for broader support, is fine. I list this formulation below:
What are the advantages or disadvantages, if any, relating to ICANN's jurisdiction*, particularly with regard to the actual operation of ICANN’s policies and accountability mechanisms? Please support your response with appropriate examples, references to specific laws, case studies, other studies, and analysis. In particular, please indicate if there are current or past instances that highlight such advantages or problems.
(* For these questions, “ICANN’s jurisdiction” refers to (a) ICANN being subject to U.S. and California law as a result of its incorporation and location in California, (b) ICANN being subject to the laws of any other country as a result of its location within or contacts with that country, or (c) any “choice of law” or venue provisions in agreements with ICANN.)
ENDS
Lets move on with it. We are spending too much time on framing a question.
*Kavouss Arasteh: * Grec, Tks again, As I said I believe ,it is counter productive to discuss many alternative, I could agree with formulation of Parminder Regards Kavouss
*Sam Lanfranco:* Greg,
Thank you for presenting alternatives for reaching agreement on a/ Roadmap for Moving Forward to identify operational issues embedded in the overall “jurisdiction” issue/. It is important to recognize that what is being proposed is the choice of roadmap for moving forward. Where this takes us will flow from the assembly of evidence, the application of analysis, and the resulting array of possible options for addressing jurisdiction base operational issues.
Sam Lanfranco* *
_______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org <https://e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3aWs2%2djurisdiction@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://e-aj.my.com/compose?To=Ws2%2djurisdiction@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>
-- ------------ Matthew Shears Global Internet Policy and Human Rights Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT) + 44 771 2472987 <tel:07712%20472987>
_______________________________________________ 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 Mon, Jan 2, 2017 at 11:52 AM, parminder <parminder@itforchange.net> wrote:
On Monday 02 January 2017 03:56 PM, Seun Ojedeji wrote:
This includes a full exercise of helping a big civil society group anchor such an analysis in form of a statement.
SO: I am not sure i understand what the statement above imply. I expect
that whatever responses are provided will be discussed within this working group and way forward determine/proposed by this working group to the CCWG plenary. Ofcouse such civil society can always participate in public comments when the time emerge.
Why do you think I would be a great fan of describing the current jurisdiction's advantages?
SO: Exactly one of the reasons why i feel asking for advantages will not help for now since someone like you or others will not necessarily provide a response on the advantages (even though there are advantages).
However, there is a long history to this debate on this list, and many say, mostly those who are for the status quo, that we cant only look at disadvantages and not mention the advantages, and since long I have conceded, sure, no problem, go ahead and do it. This is where I am coming from. What you say correspond to my known position, and thus I found no reason to press it. My email's point was; I am happy to have others add whatever they want to the question - advantages of the current jurisdiction, disadvantages of possible alternatives, whatever. I happy for it to be as complete an inquiry as possible, if it satisfied other people , and we can actually move forward. While my view of course is, and consistently has been, that we must focus on actual problems with the current jurisdiction and explore solutions, which is the way any rational exercise will proceed.
To further clarify: I wrote to Paul and Matthew because I opposed their supposition that anyone here is actually against looking at advantages of current jurisdiction. I am not.
SO: Its not a red-line for me either just that I don't think it will be useful on this initial administration of the questions. We should just get to hear the problems (whether supposed or facts) and then determine is they are indeed valid and whether a change in jurisdiction would resolve the problem while considering holistic implication of doing such.
Although I agree with you that it is unnecessary in this question since the Chairs have said that a this stage we are looking only at issues/ problems, and not solutions (and thus, possible problems with them). But to move things forward I am fine to add that to the question.
SO: Thanks for the clarification
I did not explicitly mention support to your proposal to remove "advantages" from option 1 of question 4 - though I agree with it -- becuase I see that the other side wont agree to it, and having conceded the point earlier, did not want to open up another front on this dispute on mere questions that has stopped us from any progress for almost a month now. As a matter of record though, let me state that, I support Seun's proposal to remove "advantages" from option 1 of 4.
SO: My suggestion was really for question 4. However i think that it will also apply to other questions (where positive/negative) was used. My ultimate reason is that the number of advantages/positives responses we get cannot be exhaustive hence cannot be used in any way reasonable as i expect more effort will be put on trying to exhaust the negatives/disadvantages. Regards
parminder
Sent from my LG G4 Kindly excuse brevity and typos
On 2 Jan 2017 5:09 a.m., "parminder" <parminder@itforchange.net> wrote:
Paul and Matthew
No one here has objected to asking about problems (or benefits) of any alternative jurisdictional option. Please add them where you want to in the questions. In fact, the question 1 already says advantages and disadvantages of ICANN jurisdiction, which terms always mean 'with respect to possible alternatives', but I will be happy to explicitly add to it advantages and disadvantages of any alternative jurisdictional options. But please let us move on.
parminder
On Sunday 01 January 2017 11:32 PM, matthew shears wrote:
+ 1 Paul
On 31/12/2016 18:20, Paul Rosenzweig wrote:
Actually, this is a good example of why I don't think this question is helpful. Not because I object to the solution space (as Avri says some may) but because this question is not designed to get us to the solution space that might exist. Asking only about problems or issues with respect to the jurisdiction of incorporation ignores the question of benefits. asking about problems only is like asking me what I dislike about my wife, and not taking into account all the many myriad things I like about her. :-)
And, as I've said before, the question as formulated also ignores the issue of whether any other Jurisidction might be an improvement or not. It is easy to discount the value of my own wife for a hypothetical beauty -- but in the real world, the choices are not hypothetical. Unless we ask about benefits that have arisen from the current jursidiction; and also experiences with other potential venues, this question is just a way of collecting complaints about American juridiction.
So, while I completely understand why Seun would make this suggestion and while, from one perspective, it is a sensible one, it is just a good example of why this question is so fraught.
Happy new year all Paul
-- Paul Rosenzweig Sent from myMail app for Android Friday, 30 December 2016, 00:20PM -05:00 from Greg Shatan gregshatanipc@gmail.com:
I am forwarding the following message from Seun Ojedeji to the Jurisdiction list, as he currently has Observer status and cannot post.
Greg
On Fri, Dec 30, 2016 at 2:37 AM, Seun Ojedeji < <https://e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3aseun.ojedeji@gmail.com> seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> wrote:
The suggested way forward seem fine but I would suggest modifying alternative 1 of question 4 by asking for just the "disadvantages" as I don't think there is need to ask for advantages since the goal of the question is to identify issues (okay problems - just playing around with words).
Regards PS: Can't remember if I have posting rights. Otherwise, kindly help forward to list.
Sent from my LG G4 Kindly excuse brevity and typos
On 30 Dec 2016 8:27 a.m., "Greg Shatan" < <https://e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3agregshatanipc@gmail.com> gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
REMINDER to READ this email and RESPOND, at least with regard to the questionnaire (see attachment). I've slightly revised the email for clarity.
To try and focus this discussion, I'll provide a strawman for how to deal with the alternatives:
Preamble -- Use Alternative 1. Question 1 -- Use Alternative 1. Question 2 -- No change Question 3 -- No change. Question 4 -- Use Alternative 1.
Thank you for your responses.
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: *Greg Shatan* < <gregshatanipc@gmail.com>gregshatanipc@gmail.com> Date: Tue, Dec 27, 2016 at 3:28 PM Subject: Focus, Working Method and Revisions to Proposed Questions: RESPONSE REQUESTED [was: Jurisdiction Proposed Questions and Poll Results] To: <https://e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3aws2%2djurisdiction@icann.org> ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org
All,
I'm sending this to the Jurisdiction subgroup list, since this was initially send to a discussion thread on jurisdiction taking place on the CCWG list.
*Please respond here, rather than there. Thank you.*
Greg
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: *Greg Shatan* < <gregshatanipc@gmail.com>gregshatanipc@gmail.com> Date: Tue, Dec 27, 2016 at 2:56 AM Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] RES: Jurisdiction Proposed Questions and Poll Results To: "accountability-cross- <https://e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3aaccountability%2dcross%2dcommun...> community@icann.org" <accountability-cross- <https://e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3aaccountability%2dcross%2dcommun...> community@icann.org>
All:
Two quick but important points:
1. We have strayed from the basic topic in front of us, which is to decide on the formulation of the questions to be sent out. * I have gone through the emails and meeting notes and pulled the alternative formulations and revisions in to a single document, attached to this email. *
With regard to question 4, I believe that the best way to move forward is to see if one of the alternatives gets stronger support within the CCWG. If we can get to a point where there is broad support for the question without significant opposition that may resolve issues relating to whether and when this question will be sent out.
2. Our overall agreed-upon working method is to first identify, discuss and arrive at a list of problems , and then move on to identifying, discussing and arriving at a list of potential remedies for each problem on our list. We are still working on problems . For a remedy to be up for discussion when we move to discussing remedies, that remedy needs to provide a solution to a problem . We can't discuss a potential remedy without having a problem it is intended to solve. If there is a potential "remedy" but it does not solve any of our problems , we won't discuss it.
We've already put aside one potential "remedy" until we see whether we identify any problems it would solve -- the "remedy" of changing ICANN's jurisdiction of incorporation or headquarters location. "Immunity" is another potential remedy that we need to deal with the same way. Skipping forward to discussions of remedies is only slowing down our discussion of problems . I strongly suggest we refocus on problems , so that we can get to the discussion of remedies. Once we've agreed on a list of problems , a discussion of remedies will be more productive.
Our working method of dealing with problems first and then remedies may also help us find agreement on a way to deal with question 4. Questions 1-3 clearly deal with issues. Perhaps a version of question 4 that is limited to asking for problems will get broader support ("Alternative 1" on the attachment may fit this description.)
Greg
*The following responses were received on the Accountability list*:
*Parminder*: Greg/ All
I think the Alternative 1, which you take as likely candidate for broader support, is fine. I list this formulation below:
What are the advantages or disadvantages, if any, relating to ICANN's jurisdiction*, particularly with regard to the actual operation of ICANN’s policies and accountability mechanisms? Please support your response with appropriate examples, references to specific laws, case studies, other studies, and analysis. In particular, please indicate if there are current or past instances that highlight such advantages or problems.
(* For these questions, “ICANN’s jurisdiction” refers to (a) ICANN being subject to U.S. and California law as a result of its incorporation and location in California, (b) ICANN being subject to the laws of any other country as a result of its location within or contacts with that country, or (c) any “choice of law” or venue provisions in agreements with ICANN.) ENDS
Lets move on with it. We are spending too much time on framing a question.
*Kavouss Arasteh: * Grec, Tks again, As I said I believe ,it is counter productive to discuss many alternative, I could agree with formulation of Parminder Regards Kavouss
*Sam Lanfranco:* Greg,
Thank you for presenting alternatives for reaching agreement on a* Roadmap for Moving Forward to identify operational issues embedded in the overall “jurisdiction” issue*. It is important to recognize that what is being proposed is the choice of roadmap for moving forward. Where this takes us will flow from the assembly of evidence, the application of analysis, and the resulting array of possible options for addressing jurisdiction base operational issues.
Sam Lanfranco
_______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org <https://e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3aWs2%2djurisdiction@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
_______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org <https://e-aj.my.com/compose?To=Ws2%2djurisdiction@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
_______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing listWs2-jurisdiction@icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
-- ------------ Matthew Shears Global Internet Policy and Human Rights Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)+ 44 771 2472987 <07712%20472987>
_______________________________________________ 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/l istinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
-- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng <http://www.fuoye.edu.ng> Mobile: +2348035233535**alt email: <http://goog_1872880453>seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng <seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng>* Bringing another down does not take you up - think about your action!
Hello Paul, I see why this can be a concern and its indeed the reason I suggested the question focus on the issues; I do not believe that the responses we get should be analyzed based on a "disadvantage vs advantages". It would rather be better we provide advantages/comments on the disadvantage raised - One will only get to better critique a problem when it is known. However, I do agree that just stating a disadvantage without stating a better alternate isn't entirely helpful so we could reword the alternate 1 of question 4 to include asking for suggestions on solution to a problem raised (even though I feel it's better to take the problem first, the group determine which of them are actual facts and then the group suggest proposed way forward to the plenary). Regards Sent from my LG G4 Kindly excuse brevity and typos On 31 Dec 2016 19:20, "Paul Rosenzweig" < paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> wrote:
Actually, this is a good example of why I don't think this question is helpful. Not because I object to the solution space (as Avri says some may) but because this question is not designed to get us to the solution space that might exist. Asking only about problems or issues with respect to the jurisdiction of incorporation ignores the question of benefits. asking about problems only is like asking me what I dislike about my wife, and not taking into account all the many myriad things I like about her. :-)
And, as I've said before, the question as formulated also ignores the issue of whether any other Jurisidction might be an improvement or not. It is easy to discount the value of my own wife for a hypothetical beauty -- but in the real world, the choices are not hypothetical. Unless we ask about benefits that have arisen from the current jursidiction; and also experiences with other potential venues, this question is just a way of collecting complaints about American juridiction.
So, while I completely understand why Seun would make this suggestion and while, from one perspective, it is a sensible one, it is just a good example of why this question is so fraught.
Happy new year all Paul
-- Paul Rosenzweig Sent from myMail app for Android Friday, 30 December 2016, 00:20PM -05:00 from Greg Shatan gregshatanipc@gmail.com:
I am forwarding the following message from Seun Ojedeji to the Jurisdiction list, as he currently has Observer status and cannot post.
Greg
On Fri, Dec 30, 2016 at 2:37 AM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com <https://e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3aseun.ojedeji@gmail.com>> wrote:
The suggested way forward seem fine but I would suggest modifying alternative 1 of question 4 by asking for just the "disadvantages" as I don't think there is need to ask for advantages since the goal of the question is to identify issues (okay problems - just playing around with words).
Regards PS: Can't remember if I have posting rights. Otherwise, kindly help forward to list.
Sent from my LG G4 Kindly excuse brevity and typos
On 30 Dec 2016 8:27 a.m., "Greg Shatan" <gregshatanipc@gmail.com <https://e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3agregshatanipc@gmail.com>> wrote:
REMINDER to READ this email and RESPOND, at least with regard to the questionnaire (see attachment). I've slightly revised the email for clarity.
To try and focus this discussion, I'll provide a strawman for how to deal with the alternatives:
Preamble -- Use Alternative 1. Question 1 -- Use Alternative 1. Question 2 -- No change Question 3 -- No change. Question 4 -- Use Alternative 1.
Thank you for your responses.
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: *Greg Shatan* <gregshatanipc@gmail.com <https://e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3agregshatanipc@gmail.com>> Date: Tue, Dec 27, 2016 at 3:28 PM Subject: Focus, Working Method and Revisions to Proposed Questions: RESPONSE REQUESTED [was: Jurisdiction Proposed Questions and Poll Results] To: ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org <https://e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3aws2%2djurisdiction@icann.org>
All,
I'm sending this to the Jurisdiction subgroup list, since this was initially send to a discussion thread on jurisdiction taking place on the CCWG list.
*Please respond here, rather than there. Thank you.*
Greg
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: *Greg Shatan* <gregshatanipc@gmail.com <https://e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3agregshatanipc@gmail.com>> Date: Tue, Dec 27, 2016 at 2:56 AM Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] RES: Jurisdiction Proposed Questions and Poll Results To: "accountability-cross-community@icann.org <https://e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3aaccountability%2dcross%2dcommun...>" <accountability-cross-community@icann.org <https://e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3aaccountability%2dcross%2dcommun...>
All:
Two quick but important points:
1. We have strayed from the basic topic in front of us, which is to decide on the formulation of the questions to be sent out. * I have gone through the emails and meeting notes and pulled the alternative formulations and revisions in to a single document, attached to this email. *
With regard to question 4, I believe that the best way to move forward is to see if one of the alternatives gets stronger support within the CCWG. If we can get to a point where there is broad support for the question without significant opposition that may resolve issues relating to whether and when this question will be sent out.
2. Our overall agreed-upon working method is to first identify, discuss and arrive at a list of problems , and then move on to identifying, discussing and arriving at a list of potential remedies for each problem on our list. We are still working on problems . For a remedy to be up for discussion when we move to discussing remedies, that remedy needs to provide a solution to a problem . We can't discuss a potential remedy without having a problem it is intended to solve. If there is a potential "remedy" but it does not solve any of our problems , we won't discuss it.
We've already put aside one potential "remedy" until we see whether we identify any problems it would solve -- the "remedy" of changing ICANN's jurisdiction of incorporation or headquarters location. "Immunity" is another potential remedy that we need to deal with the same way. Skipping forward to discussions of remedies is only slowing down our discussion of problems . I strongly suggest we refocus on problems , so that we can get to the discussion of remedies. Once we've agreed on a list of problems , a discussion of remedies will be more productive.
Our working method of dealing with problems first and then remedies may also help us find agreement on a way to deal with question 4. Questions 1-3 clearly deal with issues. Perhaps a version of question 4 that is limited to asking for problems will get broader support ("Alternative 1" on the attachment may fit this description.)
Greg
*The following responses were received on the Accountability list*:
*Parminder*: Greg/ All
I think the Alternative 1, which you take as likely candidate for broader support, is fine. I list this formulation below:
What are the advantages or disadvantages, if any, relating to ICANN's jurisdiction*, particularly with regard to the actual operation of ICANN’s policies and accountability mechanisms? Please support your response with appropriate examples, references to specific laws, case studies, other studies, and analysis. In particular, please indicate if there are current or past instances that highlight such advantages or problems.
(* For these questions, “ICANN’s jurisdiction” refers to (a) ICANN being subject to U.S. and California law as a result of its incorporation and location in California, (b) ICANN being subject to the laws of any other country as a result of its location within or contacts with that country, or (c) any “choice of law” or venue provisions in agreements with ICANN.)
ENDS
Lets move on with it. We are spending too much time on framing a question.
*Kavouss Arasteh: * Grec, Tks again, As I said I believe ,it is counter productive to discuss many alternative, I could agree with formulation of Parminder Regards Kavouss
*Sam Lanfranco:* Greg,
Thank you for presenting alternatives for reaching agreement on a* Roadmap for Moving Forward to identify operational issues embedded in the overall “jurisdiction” issue*. It is important to recognize that what is being proposed is the choice of roadmap for moving forward. Where this takes us will flow from the assembly of evidence, the application of analysis, and the resulting array of possible options for addressing jurisdiction base operational issues.
Sam Lanfranco
_______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org <https://e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3aWs2%2djurisdiction@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
_______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org <https://e-aj.my.com/compose?To=Ws2%2djurisdiction@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
Greg I prepfer a shorter preamble as in Alternative 1, but before that, I would like to ask where does this wording come from "...the Jurisdiction subgroup is addressing jurisdiction-related questions, including how choice of jurisdiction and applicable laws for dispute settlement impact ICANN's accountability. Is it ad verbatim from an authoritative text or a kind of paraphrasing the mandate... I would especially want to know why this part ends with "..impact ICANN's accountability" and not with "impact actual operation of policies and accountability mechanisms".... In most text on this group's mandate I see both "actual operation of policies" and "accountability mechanism" stated together. Why would we now limit this process to looking at the 'Impact on ICANN's accountability" alone. As you would have seen, most of the discussion here pertained to impact of jurisdiction on "actual operation of policies". We cannot leave that out. Thanks, parminder On Friday 30 December 2016 12:57 PM, Greg Shatan wrote:
REMINDER to READ this email and RESPOND, at least with regard to the questionnaire (see attachment). I've slightly revised the email for clarity.
To try and focus this discussion, I'll provide a strawman for how to deal with the alternatives:
Preamble -- Use Alternative 1. Question 1 -- Use Alternative 1. Question 2 -- No change Question 3 -- No change. Question 4 -- Use Alternative 1.
Thank you for your responses.
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: *Greg Shatan* <gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> Date: Tue, Dec 27, 2016 at 3:28 PM Subject: Focus, Working Method and Revisions to Proposed Questions: RESPONSE REQUESTED [was: Jurisdiction Proposed Questions and Poll Results] To: ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org>
All,
I'm sending this to the Jurisdiction subgroup list, since this was initially send to a discussion thread on jurisdiction taking place on the CCWG list.
*Please respond here, rather than there. Thank you.*
Greg
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: *Greg Shatan* <gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> Date: Tue, Dec 27, 2016 at 2:56 AM Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] RES: Jurisdiction Proposed Questions and Poll Results To: "accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>" <accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>>
All:
Two quick but important points:
1. We have strayed from the basic topic in front of us, which is to decide on the formulation of the questions to be sent out. * I have gone through the emails and meeting notes and pulled the alternative formulations and revisions in to a single document, attached to this email. *
With regard to question 4, I believe that the best way to move forward is to see if one of the alternatives gets stronger support within the CCWG. If we can get to a point where there is broad support for the question without significant opposition that may resolve issues relating to whether and when this question will be sent out.
2. Our overall agreed-upon working method is to first identify, discuss and arrive at a list of problems , and then move on to identifying, discussing and arriving at a list of potential remedies for each problem on our list. We are still working on problems . For a remedy to be up for discussion when we move to discussing remedies, that remedy needs to provide a solution to a problem . We can't discuss a potential remedy without having a problem it is intended to solve. If there is a potential "remedy" but it does not solve any of our problems , we won't discuss it.
We've already put aside one potential "remedy" until we see whether we identify any problems it would solve -- the "remedy" of changing ICANN's jurisdiction of incorporation or headquarters location. "Immunity" is another potential remedy that we need to deal with the same way. Skipping forward to discussions of remedies is only slowing down our discussion of problems . I strongly suggest we refocus on problems , so that we can get to the discussion of remedies. Once we've agreed on a list of problems , a discussion of remedies will be more productive.
Our working method of dealing with problems first and then remedies may also help us find agreement on a way to deal with question 4. Questions 1-3 clearly deal with issues. Perhaps a version of question 4 that is limited to asking for problems will get broader support ("Alternative 1" on the attachment may fit this description.)
Greg
_The following responses were received on the Accountability list_:
*Parminder*: Greg/ All
I think the Alternative 1, which you take as likely candidate for broader support, is fine. I list this formulation below:
What are the advantages or disadvantages, if any, relating to ICANN's jurisdiction*, particularly with regard to the actual operation of ICANN’s policies and accountability mechanisms? Please support your response with appropriate examples, references to specific laws, case studies, other studies, and analysis. In particular, please indicate if there are current or past instances that highlight such advantages or problems.
(* For these questions, “ICANN’s jurisdiction” refers to (a) ICANN being subject to U.S. and California law as a result of its incorporation and location in California, (b) ICANN being subject to the laws of any other country as a result of its location within or contacts with that country, or (c) any “choice of law” or venue provisions in agreements with ICANN.)
ENDS
Lets move on with it. We are spending too much time on framing a question.
*Kavouss Arasteh: * Grec, Tks again, As I said I believe ,it is counter productive to discuss many alternative, I could agree with formulation of Parminder Regards Kavouss
*Sam Lanfranco:* Greg,
Thank you for presenting alternatives for reaching agreement on a/ Roadmap for Moving Forward to identify operational issues embedded in the overall “jurisdiction” issue/. It is important to recognize that what is being proposed is the choice of roadmap for moving forward. Where this takes us will flow from the assembly of evidence, the application of analysis, and the resulting array of possible options for addressing jurisdiction base operational issues.
Sam Lanfranco* *
_______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
Grec, Once again you decided for everybody<. Question 1 We should not be selective talking about business and privacy as there would be other topics. I did suggest “ activities “ Question 3 It is senseless that you ask somebody to talk about the experience of somebody else. Pls carefully reconsider the matter. Your experience is your experience which reflects what you have been encountered. I cannot ask you to talk about the experience that I have been encountered unless I convey that to you. This is senseless and should be dropped We must have consensus ,full consensus. Since the question 1 and 3 have been drafted by X and X plus few others ( traditional group 9 support that it does not mean it is ok$ Pls prove that I am wrong Kavouss 2016-12-30 8:56 GMT+01:00 parminder <parminder@itforchange.net>:
Greg
I prepfer a shorter preamble as in Alternative 1, but before that, I would like to ask where does this wording come from
"... the Jurisdiction subgroup is addressing jurisdiction-related questions, including how choice of jurisdiction and applicable laws for dispute settlement impact ICANN's accountability.
Is it ad verbatim from an authoritative text or a kind of paraphrasing the mandate... I would especially want to know why this part ends with "..impact ICANN's accountability" and not with "impact actual operation of policies and accountability mechanisms".... In most text on this group's mandate I see both "actual operation of policies" and "accountability mechanism" stated together. Why would we now limit this process to looking at the 'Impact on ICANN's accountability" alone. As you would have seen, most of the discussion here pertained to impact of jurisdiction on "actual operation of policies". We cannot leave that out. Thanks, parminder
On Friday 30 December 2016 12:57 PM, Greg Shatan wrote:
REMINDER to READ this email and RESPOND, at least with regard to the questionnaire (see attachment). I've slightly revised the email for clarity.
To try and focus this discussion, I'll provide a strawman for how to deal with the alternatives:
Preamble -- Use Alternative 1. Question 1 -- Use Alternative 1. Question 2 -- No change Question 3 -- No change. Question 4 -- Use Alternative 1.
Thank you for your responses.
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> Date: Tue, Dec 27, 2016 at 3:28 PM Subject: Focus, Working Method and Revisions to Proposed Questions: RESPONSE REQUESTED [was: Jurisdiction Proposed Questions and Poll Results] To: ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org
All,
I'm sending this to the Jurisdiction subgroup list, since this was initially send to a discussion thread on jurisdiction taking place on the CCWG list.
*Please respond here, rather than there. Thank you.*
Greg
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> Date: Tue, Dec 27, 2016 at 2:56 AM Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] RES: Jurisdiction Proposed Questions and Poll Results To: "accountability-cross-community@icann.org" < accountability-cross-community@icann.org>
All:
Two quick but important points:
1. We have strayed from the basic topic in front of us, which is to decide on the formulation of the questions to be sent out. * I have gone through the emails and meeting notes and pulled the alternative formulations and revisions in to a single document, attached to this email. *
With regard to question 4, I believe that the best way to move forward is to see if one of the alternatives gets stronger support within the CCWG. If we can get to a point where there is broad support for the question without significant opposition that may resolve issues relating to whether and when this question will be sent out.
2. Our overall agreed-upon working method is to first identify, discuss and arrive at a list of problems , and then move on to identifying, discussing and arriving at a list of potential remedies for each problem on our list. We are still working on problems . For a remedy to be up for discussion when we move to discussing remedies, that remedy needs to provide a solution to a problem . We can't discuss a potential remedy without having a problem it is intended to solve. If there is a potential "remedy" but it does not solve any of our problems , we won't discuss it.
We've already put aside one potential "remedy" until we see whether we identify any problems it would solve -- the "remedy" of changing ICANN's jurisdiction of incorporation or headquarters location. "Immunity" is another potential remedy that we need to deal with the same way. Skipping forward to discussions of remedies is only slowing down our discussion of problems . I strongly suggest we refocus on problems , so that we can get to the discussion of remedies. Once we've agreed on a list of problems , a discussion of remedies will be more productive.
Our working method of dealing with problems first and then remedies may also help us find agreement on a way to deal with question 4. Questions 1-3 clearly deal with issues. Perhaps a version of question 4 that is limited to asking for problems will get broader support ("Alternative 1" on the attachment may fit this description.)
Greg
*The following responses were received on the Accountability list*:
*Parminder*: Greg/ All
I think the Alternative 1, which you take as likely candidate for broader support, is fine. I list this formulation below:
What are the advantages or disadvantages, if any, relating to ICANN's jurisdiction*, particularly with regard to the actual operation of ICANN’s policies and accountability mechanisms? Please support your response with appropriate examples, references to specific laws, case studies, other studies, and analysis. In particular, please indicate if there are current or past instances that highlight such advantages or problems.
(* For these questions, “ICANN’s jurisdiction” refers to (a) ICANN being subject to U.S. and California law as a result of its incorporation and location in California, (b) ICANN being subject to the laws of any other country as a result of its location within or contacts with that country, or (c) any “choice of law” or venue provisions in agreements with ICANN.) ENDS
Lets move on with it. We are spending too much time on framing a question.
*Kavouss Arasteh: * Grec, Tks again, As I said I believe ,it is counter productive to discuss many alternative, I could agree with formulation of Parminder Regards Kavouss
*Sam Lanfranco:* Greg,
Thank you for presenting alternatives for reaching agreement on a* Roadmap for Moving Forward to identify operational issues embedded in the overall “jurisdiction” issue*. It is important to recognize that what is being proposed is the choice of roadmap for moving forward. Where this takes us will flow from the assembly of evidence, the application of analysis, and the resulting array of possible options for addressing jurisdiction base operational issues.
Sam Lanfranco
_______________________________________________ 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
Kavouss, Responses below. On Fri, Dec 30, 2016 at 3:32 AM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
Grec, Once again you decided for everybody<.
I did not decide anything. I merely provided a "strawman" (a proposal intended to generate discussion). This was in response to your previous concern that the group was dealing with too many alternatives. Participants are free to respond as they see fit (as Avri has now done). Question 1
We should not be selective talking about business and privacy as there would be other topics. I did suggest “ activities “
Thank you for reiterating your earlier concern. "Activities" is in alternative 1, so it is not limited to business or privacy. We'll need to see if there is sufficient support for your concern. Question 3
It is senseless that you ask somebody to talk about the experience of somebody else.
Pls carefully reconsider the matter.
Your experience is your experience which reflects what you have been encountered. I cannot ask you to talk about the experience that I have been encountered unless I convey that to you.
This is senseless and should be dropped
Thank you again for reiterating your prior concern. Many other people in the group think this question does make sense and should be included. To clarify, the question does not ask the respondent "to talk about the experience that [a third party has] encountered." Indeed, it does not ask the respondent to talk or write at all. It asks the respondent to provide "copies of and/or links to any verifiable reports of experiences of other parties." In other words, third party experiences that have been "conveyed" through correspondence, articles, blog posts, judicial/arbitral opinions, etc. available to the respondent or more generally available.
We must have consensus ,full consensus.
There is no requirement for full consensus. This subgroup, like the full working group (and every other ICANN working group in which I've been involved) operates on "consensus," defined as "a position where a small minority disagrees, but most agree." Most often, consensus is achieved informally, through discussion and modification, until a result that "most agree" with is achieved.
Since the question 1 and 3 have been drafted by X and X plus few others ( traditional group 9 support that it does not mean it is ok$
Pls prove that I am wrong
It's common to have initial drafts prepared by a small group of volunteers. Volunteers were sought and 2 came forward (it would have been nice to have more than 2 people volunteer, but that was what we got from the subgroup). This small group drafted the initial versions of questions 1 and 2, which were sent to the entire subgroup and freely discussed over the course of at least 3 meetings and on the list, including getting a first and second reading in the subgroup. At that point, it does not matter who prepared the initial draft; what exists is the work of the subgroup. In the straw poll, "most agreed" to these 2 questions. Question 3 was not drafted by the small group at all; it came out of several suggestions in the subgroup. In the straw poll, "most agreed" to Question 3 as well. Question 4 was initially suggested by one participant; the current version (presented to the Plenary) was an attempt to incorporate suggestions from other participants. In the straw poll, Question 4 did not have support at the level where "most agreed" to Question 4. Based on the above, it seems fairly clear to me that Questions 1, 2 and 3 are "ok" in the eyes of the subgroup.
Kavouss
Greg
2016-12-30 8:56 GMT+01:00 parminder <parminder@itforchange.net>:
Greg
I prepfer a shorter preamble as in Alternative 1, but before that, I would like to ask where does this wording come from
"... the Jurisdiction subgroup is addressing jurisdiction-related questions, including how choice of jurisdiction and applicable laws for dispute settlement impact ICANN's accountability.
Is it ad verbatim from an authoritative text or a kind of paraphrasing the mandate... I would especially want to know why this part ends with "..impact ICANN's accountability" and not with "impact actual operation of policies and accountability mechanisms".... In most text on this group's mandate I see both "actual operation of policies" and "accountability mechanism" stated together. Why would we now limit this process to looking at the 'Impact on ICANN's accountability" alone. As you would have seen, most of the discussion here pertained to impact of jurisdiction on "actual operation of policies". We cannot leave that out. Thanks, parminder
On Friday 30 December 2016 12:57 PM, Greg Shatan wrote:
REMINDER to READ this email and RESPOND, at least with regard to the questionnaire (see attachment). I've slightly revised the email for clarity.
To try and focus this discussion, I'll provide a strawman for how to deal with the alternatives:
Preamble -- Use Alternative 1. Question 1 -- Use Alternative 1. Question 2 -- No change Question 3 -- No change. Question 4 -- Use Alternative 1.
Thank you for your responses.
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> Date: Tue, Dec 27, 2016 at 3:28 PM Subject: Focus, Working Method and Revisions to Proposed Questions: RESPONSE REQUESTED [was: Jurisdiction Proposed Questions and Poll Results] To: ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org
All,
I'm sending this to the Jurisdiction subgroup list, since this was initially send to a discussion thread on jurisdiction taking place on the CCWG list.
*Please respond here, rather than there. Thank you.*
Greg
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> Date: Tue, Dec 27, 2016 at 2:56 AM Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] RES: Jurisdiction Proposed Questions and Poll Results To: "accountability-cross-community@icann.org" < accountability-cross-community@icann.org>
All:
Two quick but important points:
1. We have strayed from the basic topic in front of us, which is to decide on the formulation of the questions to be sent out. * I have gone through the emails and meeting notes and pulled the alternative formulations and revisions in to a single document, attached to this email. *
With regard to question 4, I believe that the best way to move forward is to see if one of the alternatives gets stronger support within the CCWG. If we can get to a point where there is broad support for the question without significant opposition that may resolve issues relating to whether and when this question will be sent out.
2. Our overall agreed-upon working method is to first identify, discuss and arrive at a list of problems , and then move on to identifying, discussing and arriving at a list of potential remedies for each problem on our list. We are still working on problems . For a remedy to be up for discussion when we move to discussing remedies, that remedy needs to provide a solution to a problem . We can't discuss a potential remedy without having a problem it is intended to solve. If there is a potential "remedy" but it does not solve any of our problems , we won't discuss it.
We've already put aside one potential "remedy" until we see whether we identify any problems it would solve -- the "remedy" of changing ICANN's jurisdiction of incorporation or headquarters location. "Immunity" is another potential remedy that we need to deal with the same way. Skipping forward to discussions of remedies is only slowing down our discussion of problems . I strongly suggest we refocus on problems , so that we can get to the discussion of remedies. Once we've agreed on a list of problems , a discussion of remedies will be more productive.
Our working method of dealing with problems first and then remedies may also help us find agreement on a way to deal with question 4. Questions 1-3 clearly deal with issues. Perhaps a version of question 4 that is limited to asking for problems will get broader support ("Alternative 1" on the attachment may fit this description.)
Greg
*The following responses were received on the Accountability list*:
*Parminder*: Greg/ All
I think the Alternative 1, which you take as likely candidate for broader support, is fine. I list this formulation below:
What are the advantages or disadvantages, if any, relating to ICANN's jurisdiction*, particularly with regard to the actual operation of ICANN’s policies and accountability mechanisms? Please support your response with appropriate examples, references to specific laws, case studies, other studies, and analysis. In particular, please indicate if there are current or past instances that highlight such advantages or problems.
(* For these questions, “ICANN’s jurisdiction” refers to (a) ICANN being subject to U.S. and California law as a result of its incorporation and location in California, (b) ICANN being subject to the laws of any other country as a result of its location within or contacts with that country, or (c) any “choice of law” or venue provisions in agreements with ICANN.) ENDS
Lets move on with it. We are spending too much time on framing a question.
*Kavouss Arasteh: * Grec, Tks again, As I said I believe ,it is counter productive to discuss many alternative, I could agree with formulation of Parminder Regards Kavouss
*Sam Lanfranco:* Greg,
Thank you for presenting alternatives for reaching agreement on a* Roadmap for Moving Forward to identify operational issues embedded in the overall “jurisdiction” issue*. It is important to recognize that what is being proposed is the choice of roadmap for moving forward. Where this takes us will flow from the assembly of evidence, the application of analysis, and the resulting array of possible options for addressing jurisdiction base operational issues.
Sam Lanfranco
_______________________________________________ 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
Parminder, As far as I can tell, the text you are asking about is not taken verbatim from any text, but is instead a paraphrase. I can see your point with regard to adding something like "impact ICANN's accountability and the actual operation of ICANN's policies." (I would refer to "accountability" and not merely to "accountability mechanisms," which is too narrow.) What do other people think about amending the second paragraph of the Preamble so it reads: As directed by Bylaw Article 27, Section 27.1(b)(vi) and to the extent set forth in the CCWG-Accountability Final Report, the Jurisdiction subgroup is addressing jurisdiction-related questions, including how choice of jurisdiction and applicable laws for dispute settlement impact ICANN's accountability and the actual operation of ICANN's policies. I look forward to other thoughts. Greg On Fri, Dec 30, 2016 at 2:56 AM, parminder <parminder@itforchange.net> wrote:
Greg
I prepfer a shorter preamble as in Alternative 1, but before that, I would like to ask where does this wording come from
"... the Jurisdiction subgroup is addressing jurisdiction-related questions, including how choice of jurisdiction and applicable laws for dispute settlement impact ICANN's accountability.
Is it ad verbatim from an authoritative text or a kind of paraphrasing the mandate... I would especially want to know why this part ends with "..impact ICANN's accountability" and not with "impact actual operation of policies and accountability mechanisms".... In most text on this group's mandate I see both "actual operation of policies" and "accountability mechanism" stated together. Why would we now limit this process to looking at the 'Impact on ICANN's accountability" alone. As you would have seen, most of the discussion here pertained to impact of jurisdiction on "actual operation of policies". We cannot leave that out. Thanks, parminder
On Friday 30 December 2016 12:57 PM, Greg Shatan wrote:
REMINDER to READ this email and RESPOND, at least with regard to the questionnaire (see attachment). I've slightly revised the email for clarity.
To try and focus this discussion, I'll provide a strawman for how to deal with the alternatives:
Preamble -- Use Alternative 1. Question 1 -- Use Alternative 1. Question 2 -- No change Question 3 -- No change. Question 4 -- Use Alternative 1.
Thank you for your responses.
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> Date: Tue, Dec 27, 2016 at 3:28 PM Subject: Focus, Working Method and Revisions to Proposed Questions: RESPONSE REQUESTED [was: Jurisdiction Proposed Questions and Poll Results] To: ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org
All,
I'm sending this to the Jurisdiction subgroup list, since this was initially send to a discussion thread on jurisdiction taking place on the CCWG list.
*Please respond here, rather than there. Thank you.*
Greg
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> Date: Tue, Dec 27, 2016 at 2:56 AM Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] RES: Jurisdiction Proposed Questions and Poll Results To: "accountability-cross-community@icann.org" < accountability-cross-community@icann.org>
All:
Two quick but important points:
1. We have strayed from the basic topic in front of us, which is to decide on the formulation of the questions to be sent out. * I have gone through the emails and meeting notes and pulled the alternative formulations and revisions in to a single document, attached to this email. *
With regard to question 4, I believe that the best way to move forward is to see if one of the alternatives gets stronger support within the CCWG. If we can get to a point where there is broad support for the question without significant opposition that may resolve issues relating to whether and when this question will be sent out.
2. Our overall agreed-upon working method is to first identify, discuss and arrive at a list of problems , and then move on to identifying, discussing and arriving at a list of potential remedies for each problem on our list. We are still working on problems . For a remedy to be up for discussion when we move to discussing remedies, that remedy needs to provide a solution to a problem . We can't discuss a potential remedy without having a problem it is intended to solve. If there is a potential "remedy" but it does not solve any of our problems , we won't discuss it.
We've already put aside one potential "remedy" until we see whether we identify any problems it would solve -- the "remedy" of changing ICANN's jurisdiction of incorporation or headquarters location. "Immunity" is another potential remedy that we need to deal with the same way. Skipping forward to discussions of remedies is only slowing down our discussion of problems . I strongly suggest we refocus on problems , so that we can get to the discussion of remedies. Once we've agreed on a list of problems , a discussion of remedies will be more productive.
Our working method of dealing with problems first and then remedies may also help us find agreement on a way to deal with question 4. Questions 1-3 clearly deal with issues. Perhaps a version of question 4 that is limited to asking for problems will get broader support ("Alternative 1" on the attachment may fit this description.)
Greg
*The following responses were received on the Accountability list*:
*Parminder*: Greg/ All
I think the Alternative 1, which you take as likely candidate for broader support, is fine. I list this formulation below:
What are the advantages or disadvantages, if any, relating to ICANN's jurisdiction*, particularly with regard to the actual operation of ICANN’s policies and accountability mechanisms? Please support your response with appropriate examples, references to specific laws, case studies, other studies, and analysis. In particular, please indicate if there are current or past instances that highlight such advantages or problems.
(* For these questions, “ICANN’s jurisdiction” refers to (a) ICANN being subject to U.S. and California law as a result of its incorporation and location in California, (b) ICANN being subject to the laws of any other country as a result of its location within or contacts with that country, or (c) any “choice of law” or venue provisions in agreements with ICANN.) ENDS
Lets move on with it. We are spending too much time on framing a question.
*Kavouss Arasteh: * Grec, Tks again, As I said I believe ,it is counter productive to discuss many alternative, I could agree with formulation of Parminder Regards Kavouss
*Sam Lanfranco:* Greg,
Thank you for presenting alternatives for reaching agreement on a* Roadmap for Moving Forward to identify operational issues embedded in the overall “jurisdiction” issue*. It is important to recognize that what is being proposed is the choice of roadmap for moving forward. Where this takes us will flow from the assembly of evidence, the application of analysis, and the resulting array of possible options for addressing jurisdiction base operational issues.
Sam Lanfranco
_______________________________________________ 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
Submitted in compliance with the rapporteur's request. Preamble -- Use Alternative 3. Question 1 -- Use Alternative 2. Question 2 -- No change Question 3 -- No change. I would like to see an explicit mention of either Primary or Secondary legal or accademic sources being acceptable. Question 4 -- Use Alternative 1. avri On 30-Dec-16 02:27, Greg Shatan wrote:
REMINDER to READ this email and RESPOND, at least with regard to the questionnaire (see attachment). I've slightly revised the email for clarity.
To try and focus this discussion, I'll provide a strawman for how to deal with the alternatives:
Preamble -- Use Alternative 1. Question 1 -- Use Alternative 1. Question 2 -- No change Question 3 -- No change. Question 4 -- Use Alternative 1.
Thank you for your responses.
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: *Greg Shatan* <gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> Date: Tue, Dec 27, 2016 at 3:28 PM Subject: Focus, Working Method and Revisions to Proposed Questions: RESPONSE REQUESTED [was: Jurisdiction Proposed Questions and Poll Results] To: ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org>
All,
I'm sending this to the Jurisdiction subgroup list, since this was initially send to a discussion thread on jurisdiction taking place on the CCWG list.
*Please respond here, rather than there. Thank you.*
Greg
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: *Greg Shatan* <gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> Date: Tue, Dec 27, 2016 at 2:56 AM Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] RES: Jurisdiction Proposed Questions and Poll Results To: "accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>" <accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>>
All:
Two quick but important points:
1. We have strayed from the basic topic in front of us, which is to decide on the formulation of the questions to be sent out. * I have gone through the emails and meeting notes and pulled the alternative formulations and revisions in to a single document, attached to this email. *
With regard to question 4, I believe that the best way to move forward is to see if one of the alternatives gets stronger support within the CCWG. If we can get to a point where there is broad support for the question without significant opposition that may resolve issues relating to whether and when this question will be sent out.
2. Our overall agreed-upon working method is to first identify, discuss and arrive at a list of problems , and then move on to identifying, discussing and arriving at a list of potential remedies for each problem on our list. We are still working on problems . For a remedy to be up for discussion when we move to discussing remedies, that remedy needs to provide a solution to a problem . We can't discuss a potential remedy without having a problem it is intended to solve. If there is a potential "remedy" but it does not solve any of our problems , we won't discuss it.
We've already put aside one potential "remedy" until we see whether we identify any problems it would solve -- the "remedy" of changing ICANN's jurisdiction of incorporation or headquarters location. "Immunity" is another potential remedy that we need to deal with the same way. Skipping forward to discussions of remedies is only slowing down our discussion of problems . I strongly suggest we refocus on problems , so that we can get to the discussion of remedies. Once we've agreed on a list of problems , a discussion of remedies will be more productive.
Our working method of dealing with problems first and then remedies may also help us find agreement on a way to deal with question 4. Questions 1-3 clearly deal with issues. Perhaps a version of question 4 that is limited to asking for problems will get broader support ("Alternative 1" on the attachment may fit this description.)
Greg
_The following responses were received on the Accountability list_:
*Parminder*: Greg/ All
I think the Alternative 1, which you take as likely candidate for broader support, is fine. I list this formulation below:
What are the advantages or disadvantages, if any, relating to ICANN's jurisdiction*, particularly with regard to the actual operation of ICANN’s policies and accountability mechanisms? Please support your response with appropriate examples, references to specific laws, case studies, other studies, and analysis. In particular, please indicate if there are current or past instances that highlight such advantages or problems.
(* For these questions, “ICANN’s jurisdiction” refers to (a) ICANN being subject to U.S. and California law as a result of its incorporation and location in California, (b) ICANN being subject to the laws of any other country as a result of its location within or contacts with that country, or (c) any “choice of law” or venue provisions in agreements with ICANN.)
ENDS
Lets move on with it. We are spending too much time on framing a question.
*Kavouss Arasteh: * Grec, Tks again, As I said I believe ,it is counter productive to discuss many alternative, I could agree with formulation of Parminder Regards Kavouss
*Sam Lanfranco:* Greg,
Thank you for presenting alternatives for reaching agreement on a/ Roadmap for Moving Forward to identify operational issues embedded in the overall “jurisdiction” issue/. It is important to recognize that what is being proposed is the choice of roadmap for moving forward. Where this takes us will flow from the assembly of evidence, the application of analysis, and the resulting array of possible options for addressing jurisdiction base operational issues.
Sam Lanfranco* *
_______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
Thank you Greg for trying to help us navigate this difficult discussion. If we somehow end up with questions 1-4 then I would support your strawman, except for the preamble where I support the proposed preamble. In the meantime I am puzzled by where we find ourselves. The poll regarding the proposed questions had 31 respondents. Questions 1-3 were supported by very wide margin, 29-2. Question 4 was supported by a very narrow margin, 17-14. And what amounted to question 5 (“If Question 4 is not approved, I support sending out a questionnaire containing only Questions 1-3”) was supported by a vote of 19-8 (with 4 not answering), a far greater margin than Q4. What happened to the notion of sending Q’s 1-3 without Q4 based on the polling results? Question 5 decided Question 4 and the format of the survey already. As suggested by others, we should not waste any more time on this. I suspect the questionnaire will be the primary focus of our call on Thursday Jan. 5. I will re-read a number of e-mails on the various sides of this issue and comment then. But anticipation of that call raises a point that I believe is making our task more difficult. Participation rates are low, not just here but across WS2. Given the length and intensity of WS1 that may be understandable, nonetheless we are grappling with issues/questions that seem better suited to a forum other than WS2. Back in September I wrote on list why I thought ICANN’s location was out of our scope – I stand by that e-mail (http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ws2-jurisdiction/2016-September/000099.html). The questions we are wrestling with on list now seem far beyond our ability to answer, much less fix. I am not saying the questions are improper or should never be raised – I am saying that they appear beyond our scope and capability. David David McAuley International Policy Manager Verisign Inc. 703-948-4154 From: ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Greg Shatan Sent: Friday, December 30, 2016 2:27 AM To: ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org Subject: [EXTERNAL] [Ws2-jurisdiction] REMINDER: Focus, Working Method and Revisions to Proposed Questions: RESPONSE REQUESTED [was: Jurisdiction Proposed Questions and Poll Results] REMINDER to READ this email and RESPOND, at least with regard to the questionnaire (see attachment). I've slightly revised the email for clarity. To try and focus this discussion, I'll provide a strawman for how to deal with the alternatives: Preamble -- Use Alternative 1. Question 1 -- Use Alternative 1. Question 2 -- No change Question 3 -- No change. Question 4 -- Use Alternative 1. Thank you for your responses. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> Date: Tue, Dec 27, 2016 at 3:28 PM Subject: Focus, Working Method and Revisions to Proposed Questions: RESPONSE REQUESTED [was: Jurisdiction Proposed Questions and Poll Results] To: ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org<mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> All, I'm sending this to the Jurisdiction subgroup list, since this was initially send to a discussion thread on jurisdiction taking place on the CCWG list. Please respond here, rather than there. Thank you. Greg ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> Date: Tue, Dec 27, 2016 at 2:56 AM Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] RES: Jurisdiction Proposed Questions and Poll Results To: "accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>" <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> All: Two quick but important points: 1. We have strayed from the basic topic in front of us, which is to decide on the formulation of the questions to be sent out. I have gone through the emails and meeting notes and pulled the alternative formulations and revisions in to a single document, attached to this email. With regard to question 4, I believe that the best way to move forward is to see if one of the alternatives gets stronger support within the CCWG. If we can get to a point where there is broad support for the question without significant opposition that may resolve issues relating to whether and when this question will be sent out. 2. Our overall agreed-upon working method is to first identify, discuss and arrive at a list of problems , and then move on to identifying, discussing and arriving at a list of potential remedies for each problem on our list. We are still working on problems . For a remedy to be up for discussion when we move to discussing remedies, that remedy needs to provide a solution to a problem . We can't discuss a potential remedy without having a problem it is intended to solve. If there is a potential "remedy" but it does not solve any of our problems , we won't discuss it. We've already put aside one potential "remedy" until we see whether we identify any problems it would solve -- the "remedy" of changing ICANN's jurisdiction of incorporation or headquarters location. "Immunity" is another potential remedy that we need to deal with the same way. Skipping forward to discussions of remedies is only slowing down our discussion of problems . I strongly suggest we refocus on problems , so that we can get to the discussion of remedies. Once we've agreed on a list of problems , a discussion of remedies will be more productive. Our working method of dealing with problems first and then remedies may also help us find agreement on a way to deal with question 4. Questions 1-3 clearly deal with issues. Perhaps a version of question 4 that is limited to asking for problems will get broader support ("Alternative 1" on the attachment may fit this description.) Greg The following responses were received on the Accountability list: Parminder: Greg/ All I think the Alternative 1, which you take as likely candidate for broader support, is fine. I list this formulation below: What are the advantages or disadvantages, if any, relating to ICANN's jurisdiction*, particularly with regard to the actual operation of ICANN’s policies and accountability mechanisms? Please support your response with appropriate examples, references to specific laws, case studies, other studies, and analysis. In particular, please indicate if there are current or past instances that highlight such advantages or problems. (* For these questions, “ICANN’s jurisdiction” refers to (a) ICANN being subject to U.S. and California law as a result of its incorporation and location in California, (b) ICANN being subject to the laws of any other country as a result of its location within or contacts with that country, or (c) any “choice of law” or venue provisions in agreements with ICANN.) ENDS Lets move on with it. We are spending too much time on framing a question. Kavouss Arasteh: Grec, Tks again, As I said I believe ,it is counter productive to discuss many alternative, I could agree with formulation of Parminder Regards Kavouss Sam Lanfranco: Greg, Thank you for presenting alternatives for reaching agreement on a Roadmap for Moving Forward to identify operational issues embedded in the overall “jurisdiction” issue. It is important to recognize that what is being proposed is the choice of roadmap for moving forward. Where this takes us will flow from the assembly of evidence, the application of analysis, and the resulting array of possible options for addressing jurisdiction base operational issues. Sam Lanfranco
Dear All, People pèreventing us to progess by pushing for Q 2016-12-31 22:00 GMT+01:00 McAuley, David <dmcauley@verisign.com>:
Thank you Greg for trying to help us navigate this difficult discussion.
If we somehow end up with questions 1-4 then I would support your strawman, except for the preamble where I support the proposed preamble.
In the meantime I am puzzled by where we find ourselves.
The poll regarding the proposed questions had 31 respondents. Questions 1-3 were supported by very wide margin, 29-2. Question 4 was supported by a very narrow margin, 17-14. And what amounted to question 5 (“If Question 4 is not approved, I support sending out a questionnaire containing only Questions 1-3”) was supported by a vote of 19-8 (with 4 not answering), a far greater margin than Q4.
What happened to the notion of sending Q’s 1-3 without Q4 based on the polling results? Question 5 decided Question 4 and the format of the survey already. As suggested by others, we should not waste any more time on this.
I suspect the questionnaire will be the primary focus of our call on Thursday Jan. 5. I will re-read a number of e-mails on the various sides of this issue and comment then.
But anticipation of that call raises a point that I believe is making our task more difficult. Participation rates are low, not just here but across WS2. Given the length and intensity of WS1 that may be understandable, nonetheless we are grappling with issues/questions that seem better suited to a forum other than WS2.
Back in September I wrote on list why I thought ICANN’s location was out of our scope – I stand by that e-mail (http://mm.icann.org/ pipermail/ws2-jurisdiction/2016-September/000099.html). The questions we are wrestling with on list now seem far beyond our ability to answer, much less fix.
I am not saying the questions are improper or should never be raised – I am saying that they appear beyond our scope and capability.
David
David McAuley
International Policy Manager
Verisign Inc.
703-948-4154 <(703)%20948-4154>
*From:* ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction- bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Greg Shatan *Sent:* Friday, December 30, 2016 2:27 AM *To:* ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org *Subject:* [EXTERNAL] [Ws2-jurisdiction] REMINDER: Focus, Working Method and Revisions to Proposed Questions: RESPONSE REQUESTED [was: Jurisdiction Proposed Questions and Poll Results]
REMINDER to READ this email and RESPOND, at least with regard to the questionnaire (see attachment). I've slightly revised the email for clarity.
To try and focus this discussion, I'll provide a strawman for how to deal with the alternatives:
Preamble -- Use Alternative 1.
Question 1 -- Use Alternative 1.
Question 2 -- No change
Question 3 -- No change.
Question 4 -- Use Alternative 1.
Thank you for your responses.
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: *Greg Shatan* <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> Date: Tue, Dec 27, 2016 at 3:28 PM Subject: Focus, Working Method and Revisions to Proposed Questions: RESPONSE REQUESTED [was: Jurisdiction Proposed Questions and Poll Results] To: ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org
All,
I'm sending this to the Jurisdiction subgroup list, since this was initially send to a discussion thread on jurisdiction taking place on the CCWG list.
*Please respond here, rather than there. Thank you.*
Greg
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: *Greg Shatan* <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> Date: Tue, Dec 27, 2016 at 2:56 AM Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] RES: Jurisdiction Proposed Questions and Poll Results To: "accountability-cross-community@icann.org" <accountability-cross- community@icann.org>
All:
Two quick but important points:
1. We have strayed from the basic topic in front of us, which is to decide on the formulation of the questions to be sent out.
**
*I have gone through the emails and meeting notes and pulled the alternative formulations and revisions in to a single document, attached to this email. *
With regard to question 4, I believe that the best way to move forward is to see if one of the alternatives gets stronger support within the CCWG. If we can get to a point where there is broad support for the question without significant opposition that may resolve issues relating to whether and when this question will be sent out.
2. Our overall agreed-upon working method is to first identify, discuss and arrive at a list of
problems
, and then move on to identifying, discussing and arriving at a list of potential remedies for each
problem
on our list. We are still working on
problems
. For a remedy to be up for discussion when we move to discussing remedies, that remedy needs to provide a solution to a
problem
. We can't discuss a potential remedy without having a
problem
it is intended to solve. If there is a potential "remedy" but it does not solve any of our
problems
, we won't discuss it.
We've already put aside one potential "remedy" until we see whether we identify any
problems
it would solve -- the "remedy" of changing ICANN's jurisdiction of incorporation or headquarters location. "Immunity" is another potential remedy that we need to deal with the same way. Skipping forward to discussions of remedies is only slowing down our discussion of
problems
. I strongly suggest we refocus on
problems
, so that we can get to the discussion of remedies. Once we've agreed on a list of
problems
, a discussion of remedies will be more productive.
Our working method of dealing with
problems
first and then remedies may also help us find agreement on a way to deal with question 4. Questions 1-3 clearly deal with issues. Perhaps a version of question 4 that is limited to asking for
problems
will get broader support ("Alternative 1" on the attachment may fit this description.)
Greg
***The following responses were received on the Accountability list*:
*Parminder*:
Greg/ All
I think the Alternative 1, which you take as likely candidate for broader support, is fine. I list this formulation below:
What are the advantages or disadvantages, if any, relating to ICANN's jurisdiction*, particularly with regard to the actual operation of ICANN’s policies and accountability mechanisms? Please support your response with appropriate examples, references to specific laws, case studies, other studies, and analysis. In particular, please indicate if there are current or past instances that highlight such advantages or problems.
(* For these questions, “ICANN’s jurisdiction” refers to (a) ICANN being subject to U.S. and California law as a result of its incorporation and location in California, (b) ICANN being subject to the laws of any other country as a result of its location within or contacts with that country, or (c) any “choice of law” or venue provisions in agreements with ICANN.)
ENDS
Lets move on with it. We are spending too much time on framing a question.
*Kavouss Arasteh: *
Grec,
Tks again,
As I said I believe ,it is counter productive to discuss many alternative,
I could agree with formulation of Parminder
Regards
Kavouss
*Sam Lanfranco:*
Greg,
Thank you for presenting alternatives for reaching agreement on a* Roadmap for Moving Forward to identify operational issues embedded in the overall “jurisdiction” issue*. It is important to recognize that what is being proposed is the choice of roadmap for moving forward. Where this takes us will flow from the assembly of evidence, the application of analysis, and the resulting array of possible options for addressing jurisdiction base operational issues.
Sam Lanfranco
_______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
Dear All, People continue to push deleting Q4 .This is aggressive, selfish, narrow minded and divisionism. These people are all from one sector ,one country and opponent of multistakeholder. They have a special mission to maintain the existing Jurisdiction which certainly protect them and disregard the others. If we look at their affiliation it is not surprising what they push for. I assure you, either all 4 Questions or no questions. Such counting is not valid due to the fact that an overwhelming majority are coming from one single country .These are those who impose us the current stru8cture of WS1 designed by lawyers from one country well paid and well done for that country. They are protecting a particular group ,they are all together in a well-orchestrated arrangement. They are, in fact against global multistahkeholder . Their actions would certainly have counter reactions by others. We will raise awareness of others in all fora. What we did to laisse everybody was a mistake. We should have be more cautious to oppose to such single country stakeholder. Sonner we will have open consultation on the internet in which we made every thing xclear to the people. Please look at the opponents of question 4 . who they are ? where they come from ? whom they protect . The answer is crystal clear. I am suggesting to the CCWG CO-CHAIR TO STOP SUB GROUP ACRTIVITIES . This sub group is influenced by few individual acting against thousands opf person who do not have the opportunity to participate and contribute. They have no expertise. They have have resources. Silence does not means no views nor does it means agreement . We oppose to the holding of the meeting of 05 Januray. It serves nothing but protect these people from one single country. Co- Chairs. You need to intervene and instruct and advise.- Regards Kavouss 2016-12-31 23:13 GMT+01:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>:
Dear All, People pèreventing us to progess by pushing for Q
2016-12-31 22:00 GMT+01:00 McAuley, David <dmcauley@verisign.com>:
Thank you Greg for trying to help us navigate this difficult discussion.
If we somehow end up with questions 1-4 then I would support your strawman, except for the preamble where I support the proposed preamble.
In the meantime I am puzzled by where we find ourselves.
The poll regarding the proposed questions had 31 respondents. Questions 1-3 were supported by very wide margin, 29-2. Question 4 was supported by a very narrow margin, 17-14. And what amounted to question 5 (“If Question 4 is not approved, I support sending out a questionnaire containing only Questions 1-3”) was supported by a vote of 19-8 (with 4 not answering), a far greater margin than Q4.
What happened to the notion of sending Q’s 1-3 without Q4 based on the polling results? Question 5 decided Question 4 and the format of the survey already. As suggested by others, we should not waste any more time on this.
I suspect the questionnaire will be the primary focus of our call on Thursday Jan. 5. I will re-read a number of e-mails on the various sides of this issue and comment then.
But anticipation of that call raises a point that I believe is making our task more difficult. Participation rates are low, not just here but across WS2. Given the length and intensity of WS1 that may be understandable, nonetheless we are grappling with issues/questions that seem better suited to a forum other than WS2.
Back in September I wrote on list why I thought ICANN’s location was out of our scope – I stand by that e-mail (http://mm.icann.org/pipermail /ws2-jurisdiction/2016-September/000099.html). The questions we are wrestling with on list now seem far beyond our ability to answer, much less fix.
I am not saying the questions are improper or should never be raised – I am saying that they appear beyond our scope and capability.
David
David McAuley
International Policy Manager
Verisign Inc.
703-948-4154 <(703)%20948-4154>
*From:* ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounc es@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Greg Shatan *Sent:* Friday, December 30, 2016 2:27 AM *To:* ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org *Subject:* [EXTERNAL] [Ws2-jurisdiction] REMINDER: Focus, Working Method and Revisions to Proposed Questions: RESPONSE REQUESTED [was: Jurisdiction Proposed Questions and Poll Results]
REMINDER to READ this email and RESPOND, at least with regard to the questionnaire (see attachment). I've slightly revised the email for clarity.
To try and focus this discussion, I'll provide a strawman for how to deal with the alternatives:
Preamble -- Use Alternative 1.
Question 1 -- Use Alternative 1.
Question 2 -- No change
Question 3 -- No change.
Question 4 -- Use Alternative 1.
Thank you for your responses.
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: *Greg Shatan* <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> Date: Tue, Dec 27, 2016 at 3:28 PM Subject: Focus, Working Method and Revisions to Proposed Questions: RESPONSE REQUESTED [was: Jurisdiction Proposed Questions and Poll Results] To: ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org
All,
I'm sending this to the Jurisdiction subgroup list, since this was initially send to a discussion thread on jurisdiction taking place on the CCWG list.
*Please respond here, rather than there. Thank you.*
Greg
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: *Greg Shatan* <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> Date: Tue, Dec 27, 2016 at 2:56 AM Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] RES: Jurisdiction Proposed Questions and Poll Results To: "accountability-cross-community@icann.org" < accountability-cross-community@icann.org>
All:
Two quick but important points:
1. We have strayed from the basic topic in front of us, which is to decide on the formulation of the questions to be sent out.
**
*I have gone through the emails and meeting notes and pulled the alternative formulations and revisions in to a single document, attached to this email. *
With regard to question 4, I believe that the best way to move forward is to see if one of the alternatives gets stronger support within the CCWG. If we can get to a point where there is broad support for the question without significant opposition that may resolve issues relating to whether and when this question will be sent out.
2. Our overall agreed-upon working method is to first identify, discuss and arrive at a list of
problems
, and then move on to identifying, discussing and arriving at a list of potential remedies for each
problem
on our list. We are still working on
problems
. For a remedy to be up for discussion when we move to discussing remedies, that remedy needs to provide a solution to a
problem
. We can't discuss a potential remedy without having a
problem
it is intended to solve. If there is a potential "remedy" but it does not solve any of our
problems
, we won't discuss it.
We've already put aside one potential "remedy" until we see whether we identify any
problems
it would solve -- the "remedy" of changing ICANN's jurisdiction of incorporation or headquarters location. "Immunity" is another potential remedy that we need to deal with the same way. Skipping forward to discussions of remedies is only slowing down our discussion of
problems
. I strongly suggest we refocus on
problems
, so that we can get to the discussion of remedies. Once we've agreed on a list of
problems
, a discussion of remedies will be more productive.
Our working method of dealing with
problems
first and then remedies may also help us find agreement on a way to deal with question 4. Questions 1-3 clearly deal with issues. Perhaps a version of question 4 that is limited to asking for
problems
will get broader support ("Alternative 1" on the attachment may fit this description.)
Greg
***The following responses were received on the Accountability list*:
*Parminder*:
Greg/ All
I think the Alternative 1, which you take as likely candidate for broader support, is fine. I list this formulation below:
What are the advantages or disadvantages, if any, relating to ICANN's jurisdiction*, particularly with regard to the actual operation of ICANN’s policies and accountability mechanisms? Please support your response with appropriate examples, references to specific laws, case studies, other studies, and analysis. In particular, please indicate if there are current or past instances that highlight such advantages or problems.
(* For these questions, “ICANN’s jurisdiction” refers to (a) ICANN being subject to U.S. and California law as a result of its incorporation and location in California, (b) ICANN being subject to the laws of any other country as a result of its location within or contacts with that country, or (c) any “choice of law” or venue provisions in agreements with ICANN.)
ENDS
Lets move on with it. We are spending too much time on framing a question.
*Kavouss Arasteh: *
Grec,
Tks again,
As I said I believe ,it is counter productive to discuss many alternative,
I could agree with formulation of Parminder
Regards
Kavouss
*Sam Lanfranco:*
Greg,
Thank you for presenting alternatives for reaching agreement on a* Roadmap for Moving Forward to identify operational issues embedded in the overall “jurisdiction” issue*. It is important to recognize that what is being proposed is the choice of roadmap for moving forward. Where this takes us will flow from the assembly of evidence, the application of analysis, and the resulting array of possible options for addressing jurisdiction base operational issues.
Sam Lanfranco
_______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
Kavouss, First, let me wish you and the other members of the Jurisdiction subgroup a Happy and Healthy New Year. I will also extend these wishes to the other members of the GAC, as you have chosen to send a copy of your email to that group. This email seems both premature and disproportionate, when only two emails were sent in this thread expressing concerns with Question 4. Indeed, only a few participants had the opportunity to respond at all after my email was sent on Friday, since we are in the midst of a holiday period. As such, nothing has been decided, and the responses of most participants have not yet been received. As such, I was quite surprised to see an email seek to short-circuit an ongoing discussion. The content of the email is also surprising, as it consists of a series of dramatic and unsupported assertions that are quite corrosive, both to the group and to many individual participants. I think that the subgroup would be far better served by sticking to the substance of the issues and seeking to work together and work through the issues. On December 25th, I wrote in an email to the subgroup: We need to pay attention to how we engage with each other, and we need to
emphasize engagement on ideas and substance. Based on my participation in a number of working groups over the years, I've observed the following: In order to develop broad support for positions or decisions in any working group or subgroup (including this one), it is necessary for participants to strive to do three things: -- *Listen*: Take the time to understand the views of others in the group; don't dismiss views without considering their substance -- *Persuade*: Try to persuade others (through fact and logic) why your view makes sense and should be adopted; don't attempt to impose your view (e.g., by saying something "must" be done) -- *Compromise*: For a position to get broad support, it will need to reconcile opposing viewpoints. Participants will often need to move away from initial positions and "absolutes" to find common ground; the ultimate result may not be exactly what any participant or group of participants want. Without listening, persuasion has no chance to work. Without trying to persuade, others will not move to embrace your views. Without compromise, we will not arrive at positions that have broad support. The focus needs to be on facts, on ideas, on reasoning together. Focusing on identities and not on ideas will not lead to success. Playing up divisions based on identities does not lead to common ground. In my view, we need to work together as a group and concentrate on substance in order to be productive.
I wish that you had taken this to heart, rather than sending your email. Perhaps you missed my email. However, these concepts echo ICANN's Expected Standards of Behavior <https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/expected-standards-2016-06-28-en>, with which you are certainly familiar:
- *Listen* to the views of all stakeholders when considering policy issues. ICANN is a unique multi-stakeholder environment. Those who take part in the ICANN process must acknowledge the importance of all stakeholders and seek to understand their points of view.
- *Work* to build consensus with other stakeholders in order to find solutions to the issues that fall within the areas of ICANN's responsibility. The ICANN model is based on a bottom-up, consensus driven approach to policy development. Those who take part in the ICANN process must take responsibility for ensuring the success of the model by trying to build consensus with other participants.
The only way that this subgroup, or any subgroup or Working Group, will succeed is through building consensus (i.e., rough consensus). As the Standards of Behavior note, it is the responsibility of each participant to try to build consensus. It is antithetical to the consensus-building process to attempt to divide the subgroup into factions (or "camps") and to state that a large group of participants are opponents of the multistakeholder process (among many other unfortunate accusations, theories and characterizations below).
If you want all four questions to be sent out, you need to help build consensus in the subgroup that this is the right result, and you need to help the subgroup look for a form of question 4 that would get the broadest support. If you look at the email at the beginning of this thread, you will see that this is what I was trying to do (with no guarantee of success, of course). I don't think this email helps that process, to say the least. As such, it would seem that this email has exactly the opposite effect than was intended (unless the intended effect was something else entirely, such as an attempt to cause the failure of the subgroup or an attempt to force a result through something other than consensus-building). Perhaps force of habit leads to looking at all ICANN participants through the prism of nationality or national interest. This is a very counterproductive approach in a Cross-Community Working Group (a relatively recent and still evolving experiment in ICANN working methods). These incorrect assumptions can lead to other even more negative behaviors, such as stereotyping participants and conspiracy theories, and even attempts to delegitimize other participants. Participants have different viewpoints and different opinions and come from different stakeholder communities, and should not be mushed together solely due to nationality. Such reductive and oppressive approaches should be disregarded and discarded, here as elsewhere. It is quite exceptional to assert, without any basis, that an array of participants from different stakeholder communities are somehow "together in a well-orchestrated arrangement" on a "special mission" "protecting a particular group," solely based on their nationality. I am not aware of any such orchestration or collusion. It is even more remarkable to assert that this nationalistic "orchestration" extends to outside counsel engaged to assist the CCWG in its work. I note that this very email thread proves the fallacy of this line of thinking. Three US participants responded to this thread; two raised concerns with Question 4, while the third supported Question 4. I do not know who you speak for when you say "We," but if you do speak for a group of participants in the subgroup, that is the only "orchestration" I know of in this subgroup. I hope that there are few, if any, others who believe that this extreme approach is fruitful. I am concerned that the effect (if not the intent) of this email could be to sow division instead of building consensus, to undermine rather than support the work of the subgroup, to denigrate and even delegitimize participants rather than to treat them with respect and to "seek to understand their points of view <https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/expected-standards-2016-06-28-en> , " and to bring about the failure of this subgroup, the CCWG and even the multistakeholder model, instead of working to support, strengthen and succeed on all these fronts. Instead, I hope that most, if not all, of the other participants in the subgroup are committed to working together, to supporting the work of the subgroup, to discussing matters of substance, and to working within and "ensuring the success of the [multistakeholder] model <https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/expected-standards-2016-06-28-en>." This model requires commitment, a recognition that the work is sometimes messy, and a recognition that consensus requires compromise. It's a model I strongly believe in, even when the results are less than optimal from my point of view (or from the point of view of my stakeholder community). Indeed, the strength of one's commitment to the model is revealed when things aren't going one's way. I hope that you will reconsider your position and continue to work with the rest of us to support the subgroup and its work, rather than seek to stand in its way and stop its work. I look forward to your further positive contributions to the substance of the issues before us as we continue our work. Best regards, Greg On Sat, Dec 31, 2016 at 5:35 PM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear All,
People continue to push deleting Q4 .This is aggressive, selfish, narrow minded and divisionism. These people are all from one sector ,one country and opponent of multistakeholder.
They have a special mission to maintain the existing Jurisdiction which certainly protect them and disregard the others. If we look at their affiliation it is not surprising what they push for.
I assure you, either all 4 Questions or no questions.
Such counting is not valid due to the fact that an overwhelming majority are coming from one single country .These are those who impose us the current stru8cture of WS1 designed by lawyers from one country well paid and well done for that country.
They are protecting a particular group ,they are all together in a well-orchestrated arrangement.
They are, in fact against global multistahkeholder .
Their actions would certainly have counter reactions by others.
We will raise awareness of others in all fora.
What we did to laisse everybody was a mistake. We should have be more cautious to oppose to such single country stakeholder.
Sonner we will have open consultation on the internet in which we made every thing xclear to the people.
Please look at the opponents of question 4 . who they are ? where they come from ? whom they protect .
The answer is crystal clear.
I am suggesting to the CCWG CO-CHAIR TO STOP SUB GROUP ACRTIVITIES .
This sub group is influenced by few individual acting against thousands opf person who do not have the opportunity to participate and contribute.
They have no expertise. They have have resources.
Silence does not means no views nor does it means agreement .
We oppose to the holding of the meeting of 05 Januray. It serves nothing but protect these people from one single country.
Co- Chairs.
You need to intervene and instruct and advise.-
Regards
Kavouss
2016-12-31 23:13 GMT+01:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>:
Dear All, People pèreventing us to progess by pushing for Q
2016-12-31 22:00 GMT+01:00 McAuley, David <dmcauley@verisign.com>:
Thank you Greg for trying to help us navigate this difficult discussion.
If we somehow end up with questions 1-4 then I would support your strawman, except for the preamble where I support the proposed preamble.
In the meantime I am puzzled by where we find ourselves.
The poll regarding the proposed questions had 31 respondents. Questions 1-3 were supported by very wide margin, 29-2. Question 4 was supported by a very narrow margin, 17-14. And what amounted to question 5 (“If Question 4 is not approved, I support sending out a questionnaire containing only Questions 1-3”) was supported by a vote of 19-8 (with 4 not answering), a far greater margin than Q4.
What happened to the notion of sending Q’s 1-3 without Q4 based on the polling results? Question 5 decided Question 4 and the format of the survey already. As suggested by others, we should not waste any more time on this.
I suspect the questionnaire will be the primary focus of our call on Thursday Jan. 5. I will re-read a number of e-mails on the various sides of this issue and comment then.
But anticipation of that call raises a point that I believe is making our task more difficult. Participation rates are low, not just here but across WS2. Given the length and intensity of WS1 that may be understandable, nonetheless we are grappling with issues/questions that seem better suited to a forum other than WS2.
Back in September I wrote on list why I thought ICANN’s location was out of our scope – I stand by that e-mail (http://mm.icann.org/pipermail /ws2-jurisdiction/2016-September/000099.html). The questions we are wrestling with on list now seem far beyond our ability to answer, much less fix.
I am not saying the questions are improper or should never be raised – I am saying that they appear beyond our scope and capability.
David
David McAuley
International Policy Manager
Verisign Inc.
703-948-4154 <(703)%20948-4154>
*From:* ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org [mailto: ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Greg Shatan *Sent:* Friday, December 30, 2016 2:27 AM *To:* ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org *Subject:* [EXTERNAL] [Ws2-jurisdiction] REMINDER: Focus, Working Method and Revisions to Proposed Questions: RESPONSE REQUESTED [was: Jurisdiction Proposed Questions and Poll Results]
REMINDER to READ this email and RESPOND, at least with regard to the questionnaire (see attachment). I've slightly revised the email for clarity.
To try and focus this discussion, I'll provide a strawman for how to deal with the alternatives:
Preamble -- Use Alternative 1.
Question 1 -- Use Alternative 1.
Question 2 -- No change
Question 3 -- No change.
Question 4 -- Use Alternative 1.
Thank you for your responses.
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: *Greg Shatan* <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> Date: Tue, Dec 27, 2016 at 3:28 PM Subject: Focus, Working Method and Revisions to Proposed Questions: RESPONSE REQUESTED [was: Jurisdiction Proposed Questions and Poll Results] To: ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org
All,
I'm sending this to the Jurisdiction subgroup list, since this was initially send to a discussion thread on jurisdiction taking place on the CCWG list.
*Please respond here, rather than there. Thank you.*
Greg
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: *Greg Shatan* <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> Date: Tue, Dec 27, 2016 at 2:56 AM Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] RES: Jurisdiction Proposed Questions and Poll Results To: "accountability-cross-community@icann.org" < accountability-cross-community@icann.org>
All:
Two quick but important points:
1. We have strayed from the basic topic in front of us, which is to decide on the formulation of the questions to be sent out.
**
*I have gone through the emails and meeting notes and pulled the alternative formulations and revisions in to a single document, attached to this email. *
With regard to question 4, I believe that the best way to move forward is to see if one of the alternatives gets stronger support within the CCWG. If we can get to a point where there is broad support for the question without significant opposition that may resolve issues relating to whether and when this question will be sent out.
2. Our overall agreed-upon working method is to first identify, discuss and arrive at a list of
problems
, and then move on to identifying, discussing and arriving at a list of potential remedies for each
problem
on our list. We are still working on
problems
. For a remedy to be up for discussion when we move to discussing remedies, that remedy needs to provide a solution to a
problem
. We can't discuss a potential remedy without having a
problem
it is intended to solve. If there is a potential "remedy" but it does not solve any of our
problems
, we won't discuss it.
We've already put aside one potential "remedy" until we see whether we identify any
problems
it would solve -- the "remedy" of changing ICANN's jurisdiction of incorporation or headquarters location. "Immunity" is another potential remedy that we need to deal with the same way. Skipping forward to discussions of remedies is only slowing down our discussion of
problems
. I strongly suggest we refocus on
problems
, so that we can get to the discussion of remedies. Once we've agreed on a list of
problems
, a discussion of remedies will be more productive.
Our working method of dealing with
problems
first and then remedies may also help us find agreement on a way to deal with question 4. Questions 1-3 clearly deal with issues. Perhaps a version of question 4 that is limited to asking for
problems
will get broader support ("Alternative 1" on the attachment may fit this description.)
Greg
***The following responses were received on the Accountability list*:
*Parminder*:
Greg/ All
I think the Alternative 1, which you take as likely candidate for broader support, is fine. I list this formulation below:
What are the advantages or disadvantages, if any, relating to ICANN's jurisdiction*, particularly with regard to the actual operation of ICANN’s policies and accountability mechanisms? Please support your response with appropriate examples, references to specific laws, case studies, other studies, and analysis. In particular, please indicate if there are current or past instances that highlight such advantages or problems.
(* For these questions, “ICANN’s jurisdiction” refers to (a) ICANN being subject to U.S. and California law as a result of its incorporation and location in California, (b) ICANN being subject to the laws of any other country as a result of its location within or contacts with that country, or (c) any “choice of law” or venue provisions in agreements with ICANN.)
ENDS
Lets move on with it. We are spending too much time on framing a question.
*Kavouss Arasteh: *
Grec,
Tks again,
As I said I believe ,it is counter productive to discuss many alternative,
I could agree with formulation of Parminder
Regards
Kavouss
*Sam Lanfranco:*
Greg,
Thank you for presenting alternatives for reaching agreement on a* Roadmap for Moving Forward to identify operational issues embedded in the overall “jurisdiction” issue*. It is important to recognize that what is being proposed is the choice of roadmap for moving forward. Where this takes us will flow from the assembly of evidence, the application of analysis, and the resulting array of possible options for addressing jurisdiction base operational issues.
Sam Lanfranco
_______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
Dear David, Thank you very much for the wishes. Thanks for your efforts to analyze the situation. I hope you act as you have described. Pls tell me what efforts you have made to reach consensus when in your last message to go back to the score cart and implicitly reject Q4. If you really believed that everyone should work to build up consensus, you should not go back to counting infavour and against Q4 in comparing to Q 1-3. You are a good communicator but the thoughts and ideas that you described should be implemented by you. You have consistently opposed to Q4 from the outset why? Once again you do not recognize the problems of others. You are saved thus you do not consider the problem of those who feel unsaved. I do not believe the process would be helpful at all. But I joined other to agree raising questions know that those who analyze the results will do in the way that they wish. There are many unanswered QUESTIONS. Some of you from the very beginning rigorously and aggressively opposed to Q4 why? I am aware what is behind the scene. One top official from a country in a formal meeting said” “Take the jurisdiction off the table” There are other questions as follows e.g Can you tell me how a jurisdiction of a particular State could take action in regard with the sovereignty of another State? Can you tell me why the parties to a contract cannot decide aposteriori on the jurisdiction to be in country A or Country B? Can you tell me why ICANN could not have immunity from the Federal or State Laws of a given country and be subject to internationally agreed jurisdiction? Can you tell me the essence of Q3 ,in asking Y to provide the experience of Y on a subject Z? If there are dividing people is NOT me. It tis those who do not tolerate to also include Q4 together with other Qs . Why you push for a different text of a lengthy preamble when everybody else agree with a shorten text? You seems not willing to join consensus and then accuse others dividing? When almost everybody infavour of alternative 1 of Q4 with some modification and refinement, you come and oppose to that question? Who is dividing? Please also reconsider your position join others and agree to Q 4 and not again and again bring the results of the score cart? It is quite clear that the number of participants from a single country dominate the number of participants of the rest of the countries attending the meeting .Then pls kindly do not count the results of the poll as it is not representative. At this very day of the New Year, I do not wish to take more of your time and wish you and your respectful family and surrounding a very happy and prosperous New Year Cheers Kavouss 2017-01-01 9:17 GMT+01:00 Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com>:
Kavouss,
First, let me wish you and the other members of the Jurisdiction subgroup a Happy and Healthy New Year. I will also extend these wishes to the other members of the GAC, as you have chosen to send a copy of your email to that group.
This email seems both premature and disproportionate, when only two emails were sent in this thread expressing concerns with Question 4. Indeed, only a few participants had the opportunity to respond at all after my email was sent on Friday, since we are in the midst of a holiday period. As such, nothing has been decided, and the responses of most participants have not yet been received. As such, I was quite surprised to see an email seek to short-circuit an ongoing discussion.
The content of the email is also surprising, as it consists of a series of dramatic and unsupported assertions that are quite corrosive, both to the group and to many individual participants. I think that the subgroup would be far better served by sticking to the substance of the issues and seeking to work together and work through the issues. On December 25th, I wrote in an email to the subgroup:
We need to pay attention to how we engage with each other, and we need to
emphasize engagement on ideas and substance. Based on my participation in a number of working groups over the years, I've observed the following: In order to develop broad support for positions or decisions in any working group or subgroup (including this one), it is necessary for participants to strive to do three things: -- *Listen*: Take the time to understand the views of others in the group; don't dismiss views without considering their substance -- *Persuade*: Try to persuade others (through fact and logic) why your view makes sense and should be adopted; don't attempt to impose your view (e.g., by saying something "must" be done) -- *Compromise*: For a position to get broad support, it will need to reconcile opposing viewpoints. Participants will often need to move away from initial positions and "absolutes" to find common ground; the ultimate result may not be exactly what any participant or group of participants want. Without listening, persuasion has no chance to work. Without trying to persuade, others will not move to embrace your views. Without compromise, we will not arrive at positions that have broad support. The focus needs to be on facts, on ideas, on reasoning together. Focusing on identities and not on ideas will not lead to success. Playing up divisions based on identities does not lead to common ground. In my view, we need to work together as a group and concentrate on substance in order to be productive.
I wish that you had taken this to heart, rather than sending your email. Perhaps you missed my email. However, these concepts echo ICANN's Expected Standards of Behavior <https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/expected-standards-2016-06-28-en>, with which you are certainly familiar:
- *Listen* to the views of all stakeholders when considering policy issues. ICANN is a unique multi-stakeholder environment. Those who take part in the ICANN process must acknowledge the importance of all stakeholders and seek to understand their points of view.
- *Work* to build consensus with other stakeholders in order to find solutions to the issues that fall within the areas of ICANN's responsibility. The ICANN model is based on a bottom-up, consensus driven approach to policy development. Those who take part in the ICANN process must take responsibility for ensuring the success of the model by trying to build consensus with other participants.
The only way that this subgroup, or any subgroup or Working Group, will succeed is through building consensus (i.e., rough consensus). As the Standards of Behavior note, it is the responsibility of each participant to try to build consensus. It is antithetical to the consensus-building process to attempt to divide the subgroup into factions (or "camps") and to state that a large group of participants are opponents of the multistakeholder process (among many other unfortunate accusations, theories and characterizations below).
If you want all four questions to be sent out, you need to help build consensus in the subgroup that this is the right result, and you need to help the subgroup look for a form of question 4 that would get the broadest support. If you look at the email at the beginning of this thread, you will see that this is what I was trying to do (with no guarantee of success, of course). I don't think this email helps that process, to say the least. As such, it would seem that this email has exactly the opposite effect than was intended (unless the intended effect was something else entirely, such as an attempt to cause the failure of the subgroup or an attempt to force a result through something other than consensus-building).
Perhaps force of habit leads to looking at all ICANN participants through the prism of nationality or national interest. This is a very counterproductive approach in a Cross-Community Working Group (a relatively recent and still evolving experiment in ICANN working methods). These incorrect assumptions can lead to other even more negative behaviors, such as stereotyping participants and conspiracy theories, and even attempts to delegitimize other participants. Participants have different viewpoints and different opinions and come from different stakeholder communities, and should not be mushed together solely due to nationality. Such reductive and oppressive approaches should be disregarded and discarded, here as elsewhere.
It is quite exceptional to assert, without any basis, that an array of participants from different stakeholder communities are somehow "together in a well-orchestrated arrangement" on a "special mission" "protecting a particular group," solely based on their nationality. I am not aware of any such orchestration or collusion. It is even more remarkable to assert that this nationalistic "orchestration" extends to outside counsel engaged to assist the CCWG in its work.
I note that this very email thread proves the fallacy of this line of thinking. Three US participants responded to this thread; two raised concerns with Question 4, while the third supported Question 4.
I do not know who you speak for when you say "We," but if you do speak for a group of participants in the subgroup, that is the only "orchestration" I know of in this subgroup. I hope that there are few, if any, others who believe that this extreme approach is fruitful. I am concerned that the effect (if not the intent) of this email could be to sow division instead of building consensus, to undermine rather than support the work of the subgroup, to denigrate and even delegitimize participants rather than to treat them with respect and to "seek to understand their points of view <https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/expected-standards-2016-06-28-en> , " and to bring about the failure of this subgroup, the CCWG and even the multistakeholder model, instead of working to support, strengthen and succeed on all these fronts.
Instead, I hope that most, if not all, of the other participants in the subgroup are committed to working together, to supporting the work of the subgroup, to discussing matters of substance, and to working within and "ensuring the success of the [multistakeholder] model <https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/expected-standards-2016-06-28-en>." This model requires commitment, a recognition that the work is sometimes messy, and a recognition that consensus requires compromise. It's a model I strongly believe in, even when the results are less than optimal from my point of view (or from the point of view of my stakeholder community). Indeed, the strength of one's commitment to the model is revealed when things aren't going one's way.
I hope that you will reconsider your position and continue to work with the rest of us to support the subgroup and its work, rather than seek to stand in its way and stop its work. I look forward to your further positive contributions to the substance of the issues before us as we continue our work.
Best regards,
Greg
On Sat, Dec 31, 2016 at 5:35 PM, Kavouss Arasteh < kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear All,
People continue to push deleting Q4 .This is aggressive, selfish, narrow minded and divisionism. These people are all from one sector ,one country and opponent of multistakeholder.
They have a special mission to maintain the existing Jurisdiction which certainly protect them and disregard the others. If we look at their affiliation it is not surprising what they push for.
I assure you, either all 4 Questions or no questions.
Such counting is not valid due to the fact that an overwhelming majority are coming from one single country .These are those who impose us the current stru8cture of WS1 designed by lawyers from one country well paid and well done for that country.
They are protecting a particular group ,they are all together in a well-orchestrated arrangement.
They are, in fact against global multistahkeholder .
Their actions would certainly have counter reactions by others.
We will raise awareness of others in all fora.
What we did to laisse everybody was a mistake. We should have be more cautious to oppose to such single country stakeholder.
Sonner we will have open consultation on the internet in which we made every thing xclear to the people.
Please look at the opponents of question 4 . who they are ? where they come from ? whom they protect .
The answer is crystal clear.
I am suggesting to the CCWG CO-CHAIR TO STOP SUB GROUP ACRTIVITIES .
This sub group is influenced by few individual acting against thousands opf person who do not have the opportunity to participate and contribute.
They have no expertise. They have have resources.
Silence does not means no views nor does it means agreement .
We oppose to the holding of the meeting of 05 Januray. It serves nothing but protect these people from one single country.
Co- Chairs.
You need to intervene and instruct and advise.-
Regards
Kavouss
2016-12-31 23:13 GMT+01:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>:
Dear All, People pèreventing us to progess by pushing for Q
2016-12-31 22:00 GMT+01:00 McAuley, David <dmcauley@verisign.com>:
Thank you Greg for trying to help us navigate this difficult discussion.
If we somehow end up with questions 1-4 then I would support your strawman, except for the preamble where I support the proposed preamble.
In the meantime I am puzzled by where we find ourselves.
The poll regarding the proposed questions had 31 respondents. Questions 1-3 were supported by very wide margin, 29-2. Question 4 was supported by a very narrow margin, 17-14. And what amounted to question 5 (“If Question 4 is not approved, I support sending out a questionnaire containing only Questions 1-3”) was supported by a vote of 19-8 (with 4 not answering), a far greater margin than Q4.
What happened to the notion of sending Q’s 1-3 without Q4 based on the polling results? Question 5 decided Question 4 and the format of the survey already. As suggested by others, we should not waste any more time on this.
I suspect the questionnaire will be the primary focus of our call on Thursday Jan. 5. I will re-read a number of e-mails on the various sides of this issue and comment then.
But anticipation of that call raises a point that I believe is making our task more difficult. Participation rates are low, not just here but across WS2. Given the length and intensity of WS1 that may be understandable, nonetheless we are grappling with issues/questions that seem better suited to a forum other than WS2.
Back in September I wrote on list why I thought ICANN’s location was out of our scope – I stand by that e-mail ( http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ws2-jurisdiction/2016-Septemb er/000099.html). The questions we are wrestling with on list now seem far beyond our ability to answer, much less fix.
I am not saying the questions are improper or should never be raised – I am saying that they appear beyond our scope and capability.
David
David McAuley
International Policy Manager
Verisign Inc.
703-948-4154 <(703)%20948-4154>
*From:* ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org [mailto: ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Greg Shatan *Sent:* Friday, December 30, 2016 2:27 AM *To:* ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org *Subject:* [EXTERNAL] [Ws2-jurisdiction] REMINDER: Focus, Working Method and Revisions to Proposed Questions: RESPONSE REQUESTED [was: Jurisdiction Proposed Questions and Poll Results]
REMINDER to READ this email and RESPOND, at least with regard to the questionnaire (see attachment). I've slightly revised the email for clarity.
To try and focus this discussion, I'll provide a strawman for how to deal with the alternatives:
Preamble -- Use Alternative 1.
Question 1 -- Use Alternative 1.
Question 2 -- No change
Question 3 -- No change.
Question 4 -- Use Alternative 1.
Thank you for your responses.
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: *Greg Shatan* <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> Date: Tue, Dec 27, 2016 at 3:28 PM Subject: Focus, Working Method and Revisions to Proposed Questions: RESPONSE REQUESTED [was: Jurisdiction Proposed Questions and Poll Results] To: ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org
All,
I'm sending this to the Jurisdiction subgroup list, since this was initially send to a discussion thread on jurisdiction taking place on the CCWG list.
*Please respond here, rather than there. Thank you.*
Greg
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: *Greg Shatan* <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> Date: Tue, Dec 27, 2016 at 2:56 AM Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] RES: Jurisdiction Proposed Questions and Poll Results To: "accountability-cross-community@icann.org" < accountability-cross-community@icann.org>
All:
Two quick but important points:
1. We have strayed from the basic topic in front of us, which is to decide on the formulation of the questions to be sent out.
**
*I have gone through the emails and meeting notes and pulled the alternative formulations and revisions in to a single document, attached to this email. *
With regard to question 4, I believe that the best way to move forward is to see if one of the alternatives gets stronger support within the CCWG. If we can get to a point where there is broad support for the question without significant opposition that may resolve issues relating to whether and when this question will be sent out.
2. Our overall agreed-upon working method is to first identify, discuss and arrive at a list of
problems
, and then move on to identifying, discussing and arriving at a list of potential remedies for each
problem
on our list. We are still working on
problems
. For a remedy to be up for discussion when we move to discussing remedies, that remedy needs to provide a solution to a
problem
. We can't discuss a potential remedy without having a
problem
it is intended to solve. If there is a potential "remedy" but it does not solve any of our
problems
, we won't discuss it.
We've already put aside one potential "remedy" until we see whether we identify any
problems
it would solve -- the "remedy" of changing ICANN's jurisdiction of incorporation or headquarters location. "Immunity" is another potential remedy that we need to deal with the same way. Skipping forward to discussions of remedies is only slowing down our discussion of
problems
. I strongly suggest we refocus on
problems
, so that we can get to the discussion of remedies. Once we've agreed on a list of
problems
, a discussion of remedies will be more productive.
Our working method of dealing with
problems
first and then remedies may also help us find agreement on a way to deal with question 4. Questions 1-3 clearly deal with issues. Perhaps a version of question 4 that is limited to asking for
problems
will get broader support ("Alternative 1" on the attachment may fit this description.)
Greg
***The following responses were received on the Accountability list*:
*Parminder*:
Greg/ All
I think the Alternative 1, which you take as likely candidate for broader support, is fine. I list this formulation below:
What are the advantages or disadvantages, if any, relating to ICANN's jurisdiction*, particularly with regard to the actual operation of ICANN’s policies and accountability mechanisms? Please support your response with appropriate examples, references to specific laws, case studies, other studies, and analysis. In particular, please indicate if there are current or past instances that highlight such advantages or problems.
(* For these questions, “ICANN’s jurisdiction” refers to (a) ICANN being subject to U.S. and California law as a result of its incorporation and location in California, (b) ICANN being subject to the laws of any other country as a result of its location within or contacts with that country, or (c) any “choice of law” or venue provisions in agreements with ICANN.)
ENDS
Lets move on with it. We are spending too much time on framing a question.
*Kavouss Arasteh: *
Grec,
Tks again,
As I said I believe ,it is counter productive to discuss many alternative,
I could agree with formulation of Parminder
Regards
Kavouss
*Sam Lanfranco:*
Greg,
Thank you for presenting alternatives for reaching agreement on a* Roadmap for Moving Forward to identify operational issues embedded in the overall “jurisdiction” issue*. It is important to recognize that what is being proposed is the choice of roadmap for moving forward. Where this takes us will flow from the assembly of evidence, the application of analysis, and the resulting array of possible options for addressing jurisdiction base operational issues.
Sam Lanfranco
_______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
Dear Grec, Dear David, Sorry that I mistyped the addressee in putting David instead of Grec since it was Grec who wrote to me and NOT David. Dear David please accept my Apology for that mistake. However, I replied to the substance rather than to individual. Dear Grec, You have a great responsibility to perform, Pls kindly note that your duties are to conduct the meeting, listen to others, distribute the time so as to allow everyone who wishes to speak to freely and openly express her or his views, looking for grounds to find the basis for consensus, forget your affiliation ,calm down the emotions of the people ,mediate, reconcile the views , be patient and let others to talk rather than talking more than necessary . Believe me the issue is very hot, delicate, sensitive and controversial. You need to pay attention to the 23 questions that I raised on 13 December extracted from e-mail exchanges ( did not come from me ) You need not to take any position and not criticize the people. It is difficult to chair as you need to be totally neutral, impartial, patient and not opposing to the participants rather to listen to them . Everyone has a point . No one is wrong. You can not and must not act as judge because you have an interest on the matter. Please listen again Q1 You need to defocus on specific issue ( business and privacy) as in so doing you select certain topic. You then need to remain General that is why I suggest instead of those two specific area you just talk about “your activities relating to Doman Name related services). You unfortunately pushed me to the corner and instead of trying to find a compromise you said” *no change except position of Kavouss”* That was not expected. Q3 It is senseless to ask X to provide views on Y’s experience on issue Z The only entity who could provide her or his experience on issue Z is X AND not Y You did not listen to me and just followed your rational. Please convince me how Y could talk about X’s experience on issue Z. Q4 I am ready to discuss alternative 1 with some refinement Q5 I do not believe to have additional questions. Now my general views about the question It is very doubtful that we get something from that. I do not know why we need to raise these questions However, in order to join others I agreed to release 4 questions. We have had 18 meetings and we are still at the very beginning. You postponed the discussion on GAP ANALYSIS YOU POSTPONED THE ISSUE IOF IMMUNITY You postponed the issue of choice of law You postpone discussing the sovereignty What we are doing? Where we go? I wonder that the time will lapse and we may end of with NO CHANGE Please think it over, Regards Sorry to come back again Cheers Kavouss 2017-01-01 10:56 GMT+01:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>:
Dear David,
Thank you very much for the wishes.
Thanks for your efforts to analyze the situation.
I hope you act as you have described.
Pls tell me what efforts you have made to reach consensus when in your last message to go back to the score cart and implicitly reject Q4.
If you really believed that everyone should work to build up consensus, you should not go back to counting infavour and against Q4 in comparing to Q 1-3.
You are a good communicator but the thoughts and ideas that you described should be implemented by you.
You have consistently opposed to Q4 from the outset why?
Once again you do not recognize the problems of others. You are saved thus you do not consider the problem of those who feel unsaved.
I do not believe the process would be helpful at all. But I joined other to agree raising questions know that those who analyze the results will do in the way that they wish.
There are many unanswered QUESTIONS.
Some of you from the very beginning rigorously and aggressively opposed to Q4 why?
I am aware what is behind the scene. One top official from a country in a formal meeting said”
“Take the jurisdiction off the table”
There are other questions as follows e.g
Can you tell me how a jurisdiction of a particular State could take action in regard with the sovereignty of another State?
Can you tell me why the parties to a contract cannot decide aposteriori on the jurisdiction to be in country A or Country B?
Can you tell me why ICANN could not have immunity from the Federal or State Laws of a given country and be subject to internationally agreed jurisdiction?
Can you tell me the essence of Q3 ,in asking Y to provide the experience of Y on a subject Z?
If there are dividing people is NOT me. It tis those who do not tolerate to also include Q4 together with other Qs .
Why you push for a different text of a lengthy preamble when everybody else agree with a shorten text? You seems not willing to join consensus and then accuse others dividing?
When almost everybody infavour of alternative 1 of Q4 with some modification and refinement, you come and oppose to that question?
Who is dividing?
Please also reconsider your position join others and agree to Q 4 and not again and again bring the results of the score cart?
It is quite clear that the number of participants from a single country dominate the number of participants of the rest of the countries attending the meeting .Then pls kindly do not count the results of the poll as it is not representative.
At this very day of the New Year, I do not wish to take more of your time and wish you and your respectful family and surrounding a very happy and prosperous New Year
Cheers
Kavouss
2017-01-01 9:17 GMT+01:00 Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com>:
Kavouss,
First, let me wish you and the other members of the Jurisdiction subgroup a Happy and Healthy New Year. I will also extend these wishes to the other members of the GAC, as you have chosen to send a copy of your email to that group.
This email seems both premature and disproportionate, when only two emails were sent in this thread expressing concerns with Question 4. Indeed, only a few participants had the opportunity to respond at all after my email was sent on Friday, since we are in the midst of a holiday period. As such, nothing has been decided, and the responses of most participants have not yet been received. As such, I was quite surprised to see an email seek to short-circuit an ongoing discussion.
The content of the email is also surprising, as it consists of a series of dramatic and unsupported assertions that are quite corrosive, both to the group and to many individual participants. I think that the subgroup would be far better served by sticking to the substance of the issues and seeking to work together and work through the issues. On December 25th, I wrote in an email to the subgroup:
We need to pay attention to how we engage with each other, and we need to
emphasize engagement on ideas and substance. Based on my participation in a number of working groups over the years, I've observed the following: In order to develop broad support for positions or decisions in any working group or subgroup (including this one), it is necessary for participants to strive to do three things: -- *Listen*: Take the time to understand the views of others in the group; don't dismiss views without considering their substance -- *Persuade*: Try to persuade others (through fact and logic) why your view makes sense and should be adopted; don't attempt to impose your view (e.g., by saying something "must" be done) -- *Compromise*: For a position to get broad support, it will need to reconcile opposing viewpoints. Participants will often need to move away from initial positions and "absolutes" to find common ground; the ultimate result may not be exactly what any participant or group of participants want. Without listening, persuasion has no chance to work. Without trying to persuade, others will not move to embrace your views. Without compromise, we will not arrive at positions that have broad support. The focus needs to be on facts, on ideas, on reasoning together. Focusing on identities and not on ideas will not lead to success. Playing up divisions based on identities does not lead to common ground. In my view, we need to work together as a group and concentrate on substance in order to be productive.
I wish that you had taken this to heart, rather than sending your email. Perhaps you missed my email. However, these concepts echo ICANN's Expected Standards of Behavior <https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/expected-standards-2016-06-28-en>, with which you are certainly familiar:
- *Listen* to the views of all stakeholders when considering policy issues. ICANN is a unique multi-stakeholder environment. Those who take part in the ICANN process must acknowledge the importance of all stakeholders and seek to understand their points of view.
- *Work* to build consensus with other stakeholders in order to find solutions to the issues that fall within the areas of ICANN's responsibility. The ICANN model is based on a bottom-up, consensus driven approach to policy development. Those who take part in the ICANN process must take responsibility for ensuring the success of the model by trying to build consensus with other participants.
The only way that this subgroup, or any subgroup or Working Group, will succeed is through building consensus (i.e., rough consensus). As the Standards of Behavior note, it is the responsibility of each participant to try to build consensus. It is antithetical to the consensus-building process to attempt to divide the subgroup into factions (or "camps") and to state that a large group of participants are opponents of the multistakeholder process (among many other unfortunate accusations, theories and characterizations below).
If you want all four questions to be sent out, you need to help build consensus in the subgroup that this is the right result, and you need to help the subgroup look for a form of question 4 that would get the broadest support. If you look at the email at the beginning of this thread, you will see that this is what I was trying to do (with no guarantee of success, of course). I don't think this email helps that process, to say the least. As such, it would seem that this email has exactly the opposite effect than was intended (unless the intended effect was something else entirely, such as an attempt to cause the failure of the subgroup or an attempt to force a result through something other than consensus-building).
Perhaps force of habit leads to looking at all ICANN participants through the prism of nationality or national interest. This is a very counterproductive approach in a Cross-Community Working Group (a relatively recent and still evolving experiment in ICANN working methods). These incorrect assumptions can lead to other even more negative behaviors, such as stereotyping participants and conspiracy theories, and even attempts to delegitimize other participants. Participants have different viewpoints and different opinions and come from different stakeholder communities, and should not be mushed together solely due to nationality. Such reductive and oppressive approaches should be disregarded and discarded, here as elsewhere.
It is quite exceptional to assert, without any basis, that an array of participants from different stakeholder communities are somehow "together in a well-orchestrated arrangement" on a "special mission" "protecting a particular group," solely based on their nationality. I am not aware of any such orchestration or collusion. It is even more remarkable to assert that this nationalistic "orchestration" extends to outside counsel engaged to assist the CCWG in its work.
I note that this very email thread proves the fallacy of this line of thinking. Three US participants responded to this thread; two raised concerns with Question 4, while the third supported Question 4.
I do not know who you speak for when you say "We," but if you do speak for a group of participants in the subgroup, that is the only "orchestration" I know of in this subgroup. I hope that there are few, if any, others who believe that this extreme approach is fruitful. I am concerned that the effect (if not the intent) of this email could be to sow division instead of building consensus, to undermine rather than support the work of the subgroup, to denigrate and even delegitimize participants rather than to treat them with respect and to "seek to understand their points of view <https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/expected-standards-2016-06-28-en> , " and to bring about the failure of this subgroup, the CCWG and even the multistakeholder model, instead of working to support, strengthen and succeed on all these fronts.
Instead, I hope that most, if not all, of the other participants in the subgroup are committed to working together, to supporting the work of the subgroup, to discussing matters of substance, and to working within and "ensuring the success of the [multistakeholder] model <https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/expected-standards-2016-06-28-en>." This model requires commitment, a recognition that the work is sometimes messy, and a recognition that consensus requires compromise. It's a model I strongly believe in, even when the results are less than optimal from my point of view (or from the point of view of my stakeholder community). Indeed, the strength of one's commitment to the model is revealed when things aren't going one's way.
I hope that you will reconsider your position and continue to work with the rest of us to support the subgroup and its work, rather than seek to stand in its way and stop its work. I look forward to your further positive contributions to the substance of the issues before us as we continue our work.
Best regards,
Greg
On Sat, Dec 31, 2016 at 5:35 PM, Kavouss Arasteh < kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear All,
People continue to push deleting Q4 .This is aggressive, selfish, narrow minded and divisionism. These people are all from one sector ,one country and opponent of multistakeholder.
They have a special mission to maintain the existing Jurisdiction which certainly protect them and disregard the others. If we look at their affiliation it is not surprising what they push for.
I assure you, either all 4 Questions or no questions.
Such counting is not valid due to the fact that an overwhelming majority are coming from one single country .These are those who impose us the current stru8cture of WS1 designed by lawyers from one country well paid and well done for that country.
They are protecting a particular group ,they are all together in a well-orchestrated arrangement.
They are, in fact against global multistahkeholder .
Their actions would certainly have counter reactions by others.
We will raise awareness of others in all fora.
What we did to laisse everybody was a mistake. We should have be more cautious to oppose to such single country stakeholder.
Sonner we will have open consultation on the internet in which we made every thing xclear to the people.
Please look at the opponents of question 4 . who they are ? where they come from ? whom they protect .
The answer is crystal clear.
I am suggesting to the CCWG CO-CHAIR TO STOP SUB GROUP ACRTIVITIES .
This sub group is influenced by few individual acting against thousands opf person who do not have the opportunity to participate and contribute.
They have no expertise. They have have resources.
Silence does not means no views nor does it means agreement .
We oppose to the holding of the meeting of 05 Januray. It serves nothing but protect these people from one single country.
Co- Chairs.
You need to intervene and instruct and advise.-
Regards
Kavouss
2016-12-31 23:13 GMT+01:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>:
Dear All, People pèreventing us to progess by pushing for Q
2016-12-31 22:00 GMT+01:00 McAuley, David <dmcauley@verisign.com>:
Thank you Greg for trying to help us navigate this difficult discussion.
If we somehow end up with questions 1-4 then I would support your strawman, except for the preamble where I support the proposed preamble.
In the meantime I am puzzled by where we find ourselves.
The poll regarding the proposed questions had 31 respondents. Questions 1-3 were supported by very wide margin, 29-2. Question 4 was supported by a very narrow margin, 17-14. And what amounted to question 5 (“If Question 4 is not approved, I support sending out a questionnaire containing only Questions 1-3”) was supported by a vote of 19-8 (with 4 not answering), a far greater margin than Q4.
What happened to the notion of sending Q’s 1-3 without Q4 based on the polling results? Question 5 decided Question 4 and the format of the survey already. As suggested by others, we should not waste any more time on this.
I suspect the questionnaire will be the primary focus of our call on Thursday Jan. 5. I will re-read a number of e-mails on the various sides of this issue and comment then.
But anticipation of that call raises a point that I believe is making our task more difficult. Participation rates are low, not just here but across WS2. Given the length and intensity of WS1 that may be understandable, nonetheless we are grappling with issues/questions that seem better suited to a forum other than WS2.
Back in September I wrote on list why I thought ICANN’s location was out of our scope – I stand by that e-mail ( http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ws2-jurisdiction/2016-Septemb er/000099.html). The questions we are wrestling with on list now seem far beyond our ability to answer, much less fix.
I am not saying the questions are improper or should never be raised – I am saying that they appear beyond our scope and capability.
David
David McAuley
International Policy Manager
Verisign Inc.
703-948-4154 <(703)%20948-4154>
*From:* ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org [mailto: ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Greg Shatan *Sent:* Friday, December 30, 2016 2:27 AM *To:* ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org *Subject:* [EXTERNAL] [Ws2-jurisdiction] REMINDER: Focus, Working Method and Revisions to Proposed Questions: RESPONSE REQUESTED [was: Jurisdiction Proposed Questions and Poll Results]
REMINDER to READ this email and RESPOND, at least with regard to the questionnaire (see attachment). I've slightly revised the email for clarity.
To try and focus this discussion, I'll provide a strawman for how to deal with the alternatives:
Preamble -- Use Alternative 1.
Question 1 -- Use Alternative 1.
Question 2 -- No change
Question 3 -- No change.
Question 4 -- Use Alternative 1.
Thank you for your responses.
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: *Greg Shatan* <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> Date: Tue, Dec 27, 2016 at 3:28 PM Subject: Focus, Working Method and Revisions to Proposed Questions: RESPONSE REQUESTED [was: Jurisdiction Proposed Questions and Poll Results] To: ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org
All,
I'm sending this to the Jurisdiction subgroup list, since this was initially send to a discussion thread on jurisdiction taking place on the CCWG list.
*Please respond here, rather than there. Thank you.*
Greg
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: *Greg Shatan* <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> Date: Tue, Dec 27, 2016 at 2:56 AM Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] RES: Jurisdiction Proposed Questions and Poll Results To: "accountability-cross-community@icann.org" < accountability-cross-community@icann.org>
All:
Two quick but important points:
1. We have strayed from the basic topic in front of us, which is to decide on the formulation of the questions to be sent out.
**
*I have gone through the emails and meeting notes and pulled the alternative formulations and revisions in to a single document, attached to this email. *
With regard to question 4, I believe that the best way to move forward is to see if one of the alternatives gets stronger support within the CCWG. If we can get to a point where there is broad support for the question without significant opposition that may resolve issues relating to whether and when this question will be sent out.
2. Our overall agreed-upon working method is to first identify, discuss and arrive at a list of
problems
, and then move on to identifying, discussing and arriving at a list of potential remedies for each
problem
on our list. We are still working on
problems
. For a remedy to be up for discussion when we move to discussing remedies, that remedy needs to provide a solution to a
problem
. We can't discuss a potential remedy without having a
problem
it is intended to solve. If there is a potential "remedy" but it does not solve any of our
problems
, we won't discuss it.
We've already put aside one potential "remedy" until we see whether we identify any
problems
it would solve -- the "remedy" of changing ICANN's jurisdiction of incorporation or headquarters location. "Immunity" is another potential remedy that we need to deal with the same way. Skipping forward to discussions of remedies is only slowing down our discussion of
problems
. I strongly suggest we refocus on
problems
, so that we can get to the discussion of remedies. Once we've agreed on a list of
problems
, a discussion of remedies will be more productive.
Our working method of dealing with
problems
first and then remedies may also help us find agreement on a way to deal with question 4. Questions 1-3 clearly deal with issues. Perhaps a version of question 4 that is limited to asking for
problems
will get broader support ("Alternative 1" on the attachment may fit this description.)
Greg
***The following responses were received on the Accountability list*:
*Parminder*:
Greg/ All
I think the Alternative 1, which you take as likely candidate for broader support, is fine. I list this formulation below:
What are the advantages or disadvantages, if any, relating to ICANN's jurisdiction*, particularly with regard to the actual operation of ICANN’s policies and accountability mechanisms? Please support your response with appropriate examples, references to specific laws, case studies, other studies, and analysis. In particular, please indicate if there are current or past instances that highlight such advantages or problems.
(* For these questions, “ICANN’s jurisdiction” refers to (a) ICANN being subject to U.S. and California law as a result of its incorporation and location in California, (b) ICANN being subject to the laws of any other country as a result of its location within or contacts with that country, or (c) any “choice of law” or venue provisions in agreements with ICANN.)
ENDS
Lets move on with it. We are spending too much time on framing a question.
*Kavouss Arasteh: *
Grec,
Tks again,
As I said I believe ,it is counter productive to discuss many alternative,
I could agree with formulation of Parminder
Regards
Kavouss
*Sam Lanfranco:*
Greg,
Thank you for presenting alternatives for reaching agreement on a* Roadmap for Moving Forward to identify operational issues embedded in the overall “jurisdiction” issue*. It is important to recognize that what is being proposed is the choice of roadmap for moving forward. Where this takes us will flow from the assembly of evidence, the application of analysis, and the resulting array of possible options for addressing jurisdiction base operational issues.
Sam Lanfranco
_______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
Sent from my LG G4 Kindly excuse brevity and typos On 1 Jan 2017 13:00, "Kavouss Arasteh" <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote: Q3 It is senseless to ask X to provide views on Y’s experience on issue Z The only entity who could provide her or his experience on issue Z is X AND not Y SO: Just on your anology above, I think the better entity to provide a fact based experience of Z would be Y and NOT X. Certainly asking X to provide a view may not be senseless (depending on the goal) but may not be based on fact. Overall I think this subgroup Members needs to calm down and both sides needs to stop being on the defensive. All we are talking about here are just questionnaire, and we can still administer more after analyzing the responses from the first set. I pray wisdom for the group leads and encouraging us all to listen to one another. Wishing everyone a happy new year! Regards 2017-01-01 10:56 GMT+01:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>:
Dear David,
Thank you very much for the wishes.
Thanks for your efforts to analyze the situation.
I hope you act as you have described.
Pls tell me what efforts you have made to reach consensus when in your last message to go back to the score cart and implicitly reject Q4.
If you really believed that everyone should work to build up consensus, you should not go back to counting infavour and against Q4 in comparing to Q 1-3.
You are a good communicator but the thoughts and ideas that you described should be implemented by you.
You have consistently opposed to Q4 from the outset why?
Once again you do not recognize the problems of others. You are saved thus you do not consider the problem of those who feel unsaved.
I do not believe the process would be helpful at all. But I joined other to agree raising questions know that those who analyze the results will do in the way that they wish.
There are many unanswered QUESTIONS.
Some of you from the very beginning rigorously and aggressively opposed to Q4 why?
I am aware what is behind the scene. One top official from a country in a formal meeting said”
“Take the jurisdiction off the table”
There are other questions as follows e.g
Can you tell me how a jurisdiction of a particular State could take action in regard with the sovereignty of another State?
Can you tell me why the parties to a contract cannot decide aposteriori on the jurisdiction to be in country A or Country B?
Can you tell me why ICANN could not have immunity from the Federal or State Laws of a given country and be subject to internationally agreed jurisdiction?
Can you tell me the essence of Q3 ,in asking Y to provide the experience of Y on a subject Z?
If there are dividing people is NOT me. It tis those who do not tolerate to also include Q4 together with other Qs .
Why you push for a different text of a lengthy preamble when everybody else agree with a shorten text? You seems not willing to join consensus and then accuse others dividing?
When almost everybody infavour of alternative 1 of Q4 with some modification and refinement, you come and oppose to that question?
Who is dividing?
Please also reconsider your position join others and agree to Q 4 and not again and again bring the results of the score cart?
It is quite clear that the number of participants from a single country dominate the number of participants of the rest of the countries attending the meeting .Then pls kindly do not count the results of the poll as it is not representative.
At this very day of the New Year, I do not wish to take more of your time and wish you and your respectful family and surrounding a very happy and prosperous New Year
Cheers
Kavouss
2017-01-01 9:17 GMT+01:00 Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com>:
Kavouss,
First, let me wish you and the other members of the Jurisdiction subgroup a Happy and Healthy New Year. I will also extend these wishes to the other members of the GAC, as you have chosen to send a copy of your email to that group.
This email seems both premature and disproportionate, when only two emails were sent in this thread expressing concerns with Question 4. Indeed, only a few participants had the opportunity to respond at all after my email was sent on Friday, since we are in the midst of a holiday period. As such, nothing has been decided, and the responses of most participants have not yet been received. As such, I was quite surprised to see an email seek to short-circuit an ongoing discussion.
The content of the email is also surprising, as it consists of a series of dramatic and unsupported assertions that are quite corrosive, both to the group and to many individual participants. I think that the subgroup would be far better served by sticking to the substance of the issues and seeking to work together and work through the issues. On December 25th, I wrote in an email to the subgroup:
We need to pay attention to how we engage with each other, and we need to
emphasize engagement on ideas and substance. Based on my participation in a number of working groups over the years, I've observed the following: In order to develop broad support for positions or decisions in any working group or subgroup (including this one), it is necessary for participants to strive to do three things: -- *Listen*: Take the time to understand the views of others in the group; don't dismiss views without considering their substance -- *Persuade*: Try to persuade others (through fact and logic) why your view makes sense and should be adopted; don't attempt to impose your view (e.g., by saying something "must" be done) -- *Compromise*: For a position to get broad support, it will need to reconcile opposing viewpoints. Participants will often need to move away from initial positions and "absolutes" to find common ground; the ultimate result may not be exactly what any participant or group of participants want. Without listening, persuasion has no chance to work. Without trying to persuade, others will not move to embrace your views. Without compromise, we will not arrive at positions that have broad support. The focus needs to be on facts, on ideas, on reasoning together. Focusing on identities and not on ideas will not lead to success. Playing up divisions based on identities does not lead to common ground. In my view, we need to work together as a group and concentrate on substance in order to be productive.
I wish that you had taken this to heart, rather than sending your email. Perhaps you missed my email. However, these concepts echo ICANN's Expected Standards of Behavior <https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/expected-standards-2016-06-28-en>, with which you are certainly familiar:
- *Listen* to the views of all stakeholders when considering policy issues. ICANN is a unique multi-stakeholder environment. Those who take part in the ICANN process must acknowledge the importance of all stakeholders and seek to understand their points of view.
- *Work* to build consensus with other stakeholders in order to find solutions to the issues that fall within the areas of ICANN's responsibility. The ICANN model is based on a bottom-up, consensus driven approach to policy development. Those who take part in the ICANN process must take responsibility for ensuring the success of the model by trying to build consensus with other participants.
The only way that this subgroup, or any subgroup or Working Group, will succeed is through building consensus (i.e., rough consensus). As the Standards of Behavior note, it is the responsibility of each participant to try to build consensus. It is antithetical to the consensus-building process to attempt to divide the subgroup into factions (or "camps") and to state that a large group of participants are opponents of the multistakeholder process (among many other unfortunate accusations, theories and characterizations below).
If you want all four questions to be sent out, you need to help build consensus in the subgroup that this is the right result, and you need to help the subgroup look for a form of question 4 that would get the broadest support. If you look at the email at the beginning of this thread, you will see that this is what I was trying to do (with no guarantee of success, of course). I don't think this email helps that process, to say the least. As such, it would seem that this email has exactly the opposite effect than was intended (unless the intended effect was something else entirely, such as an attempt to cause the failure of the subgroup or an attempt to force a result through something other than consensus-building).
Perhaps force of habit leads to looking at all ICANN participants through the prism of nationality or national interest. This is a very counterproductive approach in a Cross-Community Working Group (a relatively recent and still evolving experiment in ICANN working methods). These incorrect assumptions can lead to other even more negative behaviors, such as stereotyping participants and conspiracy theories, and even attempts to delegitimize other participants. Participants have different viewpoints and different opinions and come from different stakeholder communities, and should not be mushed together solely due to nationality. Such reductive and oppressive approaches should be disregarded and discarded, here as elsewhere.
It is quite exceptional to assert, without any basis, that an array of participants from different stakeholder communities are somehow "together in a well-orchestrated arrangement" on a "special mission" "protecting a particular group," solely based on their nationality. I am not aware of any such orchestration or collusion. It is even more remarkable to assert that this nationalistic "orchestration" extends to outside counsel engaged to assist the CCWG in its work.
I note that this very email thread proves the fallacy of this line of thinking. Three US participants responded to this thread; two raised concerns with Question 4, while the third supported Question 4.
I do not know who you speak for when you say "We," but if you do speak for a group of participants in the subgroup, that is the only "orchestration" I know of in this subgroup. I hope that there are few, if any, others who believe that this extreme approach is fruitful. I am concerned that the effect (if not the intent) of this email could be to sow division instead of building consensus, to undermine rather than support the work of the subgroup, to denigrate and even delegitimize participants rather than to treat them with respect and to "seek to understand their points of view <https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/expected-standards-2016-06-28-en> , " and to bring about the failure of this subgroup, the CCWG and even the multistakeholder model, instead of working to support, strengthen and succeed on all these fronts.
Instead, I hope that most, if not all, of the other participants in the subgroup are committed to working together, to supporting the work of the subgroup, to discussing matters of substance, and to working within and "ensuring the success of the [multistakeholder] model <https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/expected-standards-2016-06-28-en>." This model requires commitment, a recognition that the work is sometimes messy, and a recognition that consensus requires compromise. It's a model I strongly believe in, even when the results are less than optimal from my point of view (or from the point of view of my stakeholder community). Indeed, the strength of one's commitment to the model is revealed when things aren't going one's way.
I hope that you will reconsider your position and continue to work with the rest of us to support the subgroup and its work, rather than seek to stand in its way and stop its work. I look forward to your further positive contributions to the substance of the issues before us as we continue our work.
Best regards,
Greg
On Sat, Dec 31, 2016 at 5:35 PM, Kavouss Arasteh < kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear All,
People continue to push deleting Q4 .This is aggressive, selfish, narrow minded and divisionism. These people are all from one sector ,one country and opponent of multistakeholder.
They have a special mission to maintain the existing Jurisdiction which certainly protect them and disregard the others. If we look at their affiliation it is not surprising what they push for.
I assure you, either all 4 Questions or no questions.
Such counting is not valid due to the fact that an overwhelming majority are coming from one single country .These are those who impose us the current stru8cture of WS1 designed by lawyers from one country well paid and well done for that country.
They are protecting a particular group ,they are all together in a well-orchestrated arrangement.
They are, in fact against global multistahkeholder .
Their actions would certainly have counter reactions by others.
We will raise awareness of others in all fora.
What we did to laisse everybody was a mistake. We should have be more cautious to oppose to such single country stakeholder.
Sonner we will have open consultation on the internet in which we made every thing xclear to the people.
Please look at the opponents of question 4 . who they are ? where they come from ? whom they protect .
The answer is crystal clear.
I am suggesting to the CCWG CO-CHAIR TO STOP SUB GROUP ACRTIVITIES .
This sub group is influenced by few individual acting against thousands opf person who do not have the opportunity to participate and contribute.
They have no expertise. They have have resources.
Silence does not means no views nor does it means agreement .
We oppose to the holding of the meeting of 05 Januray. It serves nothing but protect these people from one single country.
Co- Chairs.
You need to intervene and instruct and advise.-
Regards
Kavouss
2016-12-31 23:13 GMT+01:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>:
Dear All, People pèreventing us to progess by pushing for Q
2016-12-31 22:00 GMT+01:00 McAuley, David <dmcauley@verisign.com>:
Thank you Greg for trying to help us navigate this difficult discussion.
If we somehow end up with questions 1-4 then I would support your strawman, except for the preamble where I support the proposed preamble.
In the meantime I am puzzled by where we find ourselves.
The poll regarding the proposed questions had 31 respondents. Questions 1-3 were supported by very wide margin, 29-2. Question 4 was supported by a very narrow margin, 17-14. And what amounted to question 5 (“If Question 4 is not approved, I support sending out a questionnaire containing only Questions 1-3”) was supported by a vote of 19-8 (with 4 not answering), a far greater margin than Q4.
What happened to the notion of sending Q’s 1-3 without Q4 based on the polling results? Question 5 decided Question 4 and the format of the survey already. As suggested by others, we should not waste any more time on this.
I suspect the questionnaire will be the primary focus of our call on Thursday Jan. 5. I will re-read a number of e-mails on the various sides of this issue and comment then.
But anticipation of that call raises a point that I believe is making our task more difficult. Participation rates are low, not just here but across WS2. Given the length and intensity of WS1 that may be understandable, nonetheless we are grappling with issues/questions that seem better suited to a forum other than WS2.
Back in September I wrote on list why I thought ICANN’s location was out of our scope – I stand by that e-mail ( http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ws2-jurisdiction/2016-Septemb er/000099.html). The questions we are wrestling with on list now seem far beyond our ability to answer, much less fix.
I am not saying the questions are improper or should never be raised – I am saying that they appear beyond our scope and capability.
David
David McAuley
International Policy Manager
Verisign Inc.
703-948-4154 <(703)%20948-4154>
*From:* ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org [mailto: ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Greg Shatan *Sent:* Friday, December 30, 2016 2:27 AM *To:* ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org *Subject:* [EXTERNAL] [Ws2-jurisdiction] REMINDER: Focus, Working Method and Revisions to Proposed Questions: RESPONSE REQUESTED [was: Jurisdiction Proposed Questions and Poll Results]
REMINDER to READ this email and RESPOND, at least with regard to the questionnaire (see attachment). I've slightly revised the email for clarity.
To try and focus this discussion, I'll provide a strawman for how to deal with the alternatives:
Preamble -- Use Alternative 1.
Question 1 -- Use Alternative 1.
Question 2 -- No change
Question 3 -- No change.
Question 4 -- Use Alternative 1.
Thank you for your responses.
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: *Greg Shatan* <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> Date: Tue, Dec 27, 2016 at 3:28 PM Subject: Focus, Working Method and Revisions to Proposed Questions: RESPONSE REQUESTED [was: Jurisdiction Proposed Questions and Poll Results] To: ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org
All,
I'm sending this to the Jurisdiction subgroup list, since this was initially send to a discussion thread on jurisdiction taking place on the CCWG list.
*Please respond here, rather than there. Thank you.*
Greg
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: *Greg Shatan* <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> Date: Tue, Dec 27, 2016 at 2:56 AM Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] RES: Jurisdiction Proposed Questions and Poll Results To: "accountability-cross-community@icann.org" < accountability-cross-community@icann.org>
All:
Two quick but important points:
1. We have strayed from the basic topic in front of us, which is to decide on the formulation of the questions to be sent out.
**
*I have gone through the emails and meeting notes and pulled the alternative formulations and revisions in to a single document, attached to this email. *
With regard to question 4, I believe that the best way to move forward is to see if one of the alternatives gets stronger support within the CCWG. If we can get to a point where there is broad support for the question without significant opposition that may resolve issues relating to whether and when this question will be sent out.
2. Our overall agreed-upon working method is to first identify, discuss and arrive at a list of
problems
, and then move on to identifying, discussing and arriving at a list of potential remedies for each
problem
on our list. We are still working on
problems
. For a remedy to be up for discussion when we move to discussing remedies, that remedy needs to provide a solution to a
problem
. We can't discuss a potential remedy without having a
problem
it is intended to solve. If there is a potential "remedy" but it does not solve any of our
problems
, we won't discuss it.
We've already put aside one potential "remedy" until we see whether we identify any
problems
it would solve -- the "remedy" of changing ICANN's jurisdiction of incorporation or headquarters location. "Immunity" is another potential remedy that we need to deal with the same way. Skipping forward to discussions of remedies is only slowing down our discussion of
problems
. I strongly suggest we refocus on
problems
, so that we can get to the discussion of remedies. Once we've agreed on a list of
problems
, a discussion of remedies will be more productive.
Our working method of dealing with
problems
first and then remedies may also help us find agreement on a way to deal with question 4. Questions 1-3 clearly deal with issues. Perhaps a version of question 4 that is limited to asking for
problems
will get broader support ("Alternative 1" on the attachment may fit this description.)
Greg
***The following responses were received on the Accountability list*:
*Parminder*:
Greg/ All
I think the Alternative 1, which you take as likely candidate for broader support, is fine. I list this formulation below:
What are the advantages or disadvantages, if any, relating to ICANN's jurisdiction*, particularly with regard to the actual operation of ICANN’s policies and accountability mechanisms? Please support your response with appropriate examples, references to specific laws, case studies, other studies, and analysis. In particular, please indicate if there are current or past instances that highlight such advantages or problems.
(* For these questions, “ICANN’s jurisdiction” refers to (a) ICANN being subject to U.S. and California law as a result of its incorporation and location in California, (b) ICANN being subject to the laws of any other country as a result of its location within or contacts with that country, or (c) any “choice of law” or venue provisions in agreements with ICANN.)
ENDS
Lets move on with it. We are spending too much time on framing a question.
*Kavouss Arasteh: *
Grec,
Tks again,
As I said I believe ,it is counter productive to discuss many alternative,
I could agree with formulation of Parminder
Regards
Kavouss
*Sam Lanfranco:*
Greg,
Thank you for presenting alternatives for reaching agreement on a* Roadmap for Moving Forward to identify operational issues embedded in the overall “jurisdiction” issue*. It is important to recognize that what is being proposed is the choice of roadmap for moving forward. Where this takes us will flow from the assembly of evidence, the application of analysis, and the resulting array of possible options for addressing jurisdiction base operational issues.
Sam Lanfranco
_______________________________________________ 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
I disagree totally with you that asking Y to provide the experience of X on issue Z . It means that X went to the mountain and you ask Y to provide experience of X on mountain trip. What does it means You defend a wrong issue Let me ask you the following question. You went to country A and came back . People asking a another person to provide your experience on that travelling. Pls explain the process since that another person may have not travelled to that country at all. Regards 2017-01-01 13:29 GMT+01:00 Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com>:
Sent from my LG G4 Kindly excuse brevity and typos
On 1 Jan 2017 13:00, "Kavouss Arasteh" <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
Q3
It is senseless to ask X to provide views on Y’s experience on issue Z
The only entity who could provide her or his experience on issue Z is X AND not Y
SO: Just on your anology above, I think the better entity to provide a fact based experience of Z would be Y and NOT X. Certainly asking X to provide a view may not be senseless (depending on the goal) but may not be based on fact.
Overall I think this subgroup Members needs to calm down and both sides needs to stop being on the defensive. All we are talking about here are just questionnaire, and we can still administer more after analyzing the responses from the first set. I pray wisdom for the group leads and encouraging us all to listen to one another.
Wishing everyone a happy new year!
Regards
2017-01-01 10:56 GMT+01:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>:
Dear David,
Thank you very much for the wishes.
Thanks for your efforts to analyze the situation.
I hope you act as you have described.
Pls tell me what efforts you have made to reach consensus when in your last message to go back to the score cart and implicitly reject Q4.
If you really believed that everyone should work to build up consensus, you should not go back to counting infavour and against Q4 in comparing to Q 1-3.
You are a good communicator but the thoughts and ideas that you described should be implemented by you.
You have consistently opposed to Q4 from the outset why?
Once again you do not recognize the problems of others. You are saved thus you do not consider the problem of those who feel unsaved.
I do not believe the process would be helpful at all. But I joined other to agree raising questions know that those who analyze the results will do in the way that they wish.
There are many unanswered QUESTIONS.
Some of you from the very beginning rigorously and aggressively opposed to Q4 why?
I am aware what is behind the scene. One top official from a country in a formal meeting said”
“Take the jurisdiction off the table”
There are other questions as follows e.g
Can you tell me how a jurisdiction of a particular State could take action in regard with the sovereignty of another State?
Can you tell me why the parties to a contract cannot decide aposteriori on the jurisdiction to be in country A or Country B?
Can you tell me why ICANN could not have immunity from the Federal or State Laws of a given country and be subject to internationally agreed jurisdiction?
Can you tell me the essence of Q3 ,in asking Y to provide the experience of Y on a subject Z?
If there are dividing people is NOT me. It tis those who do not tolerate to also include Q4 together with other Qs .
Why you push for a different text of a lengthy preamble when everybody else agree with a shorten text? You seems not willing to join consensus and then accuse others dividing?
When almost everybody infavour of alternative 1 of Q4 with some modification and refinement, you come and oppose to that question?
Who is dividing?
Please also reconsider your position join others and agree to Q 4 and not again and again bring the results of the score cart?
It is quite clear that the number of participants from a single country dominate the number of participants of the rest of the countries attending the meeting .Then pls kindly do not count the results of the poll as it is not representative.
At this very day of the New Year, I do not wish to take more of your time and wish you and your respectful family and surrounding a very happy and prosperous New Year
Cheers
Kavouss
2017-01-01 9:17 GMT+01:00 Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com>:
Kavouss,
First, let me wish you and the other members of the Jurisdiction subgroup a Happy and Healthy New Year. I will also extend these wishes to the other members of the GAC, as you have chosen to send a copy of your email to that group.
This email seems both premature and disproportionate, when only two emails were sent in this thread expressing concerns with Question 4. Indeed, only a few participants had the opportunity to respond at all after my email was sent on Friday, since we are in the midst of a holiday period. As such, nothing has been decided, and the responses of most participants have not yet been received. As such, I was quite surprised to see an email seek to short-circuit an ongoing discussion.
The content of the email is also surprising, as it consists of a series of dramatic and unsupported assertions that are quite corrosive, both to the group and to many individual participants. I think that the subgroup would be far better served by sticking to the substance of the issues and seeking to work together and work through the issues. On December 25th, I wrote in an email to the subgroup:
We need to pay attention to how we engage with each other, and we need
to emphasize engagement on ideas and substance. Based on my participation in a number of working groups over the years, I've observed the following: In order to develop broad support for positions or decisions in any working group or subgroup (including this one), it is necessary for participants to strive to do three things: -- *Listen*: Take the time to understand the views of others in the group; don't dismiss views without considering their substance -- *Persuade*: Try to persuade others (through fact and logic) why your view makes sense and should be adopted; don't attempt to impose your view (e.g., by saying something "must" be done) -- *Compromise*: For a position to get broad support, it will need to reconcile opposing viewpoints. Participants will often need to move away from initial positions and "absolutes" to find common ground; the ultimate result may not be exactly what any participant or group of participants want. Without listening, persuasion has no chance to work. Without trying to persuade, others will not move to embrace your views. Without compromise, we will not arrive at positions that have broad support. The focus needs to be on facts, on ideas, on reasoning together. Focusing on identities and not on ideas will not lead to success. Playing up divisions based on identities does not lead to common ground. In my view, we need to work together as a group and concentrate on substance in order to be productive.
I wish that you had taken this to heart, rather than sending your email. Perhaps you missed my email. However, these concepts echo ICANN's Expected Standards of Behavior <https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/expected-standards-2016-06-28-en>, with which you are certainly familiar:
- *Listen* to the views of all stakeholders when considering policy issues. ICANN is a unique multi-stakeholder environment. Those who take part in the ICANN process must acknowledge the importance of all stakeholders and seek to understand their points of view.
- *Work* to build consensus with other stakeholders in order to find solutions to the issues that fall within the areas of ICANN's responsibility. The ICANN model is based on a bottom-up, consensus driven approach to policy development. Those who take part in the ICANN process must take responsibility for ensuring the success of the model by trying to build consensus with other participants.
The only way that this subgroup, or any subgroup or Working Group, will succeed is through building consensus (i.e., rough consensus). As the Standards of Behavior note, it is the responsibility of each participant to try to build consensus. It is antithetical to the consensus-building process to attempt to divide the subgroup into factions (or "camps") and to state that a large group of participants are opponents of the multistakeholder process (among many other unfortunate accusations, theories and characterizations below).
If you want all four questions to be sent out, you need to help build consensus in the subgroup that this is the right result, and you need to help the subgroup look for a form of question 4 that would get the broadest support. If you look at the email at the beginning of this thread, you will see that this is what I was trying to do (with no guarantee of success, of course). I don't think this email helps that process, to say the least. As such, it would seem that this email has exactly the opposite effect than was intended (unless the intended effect was something else entirely, such as an attempt to cause the failure of the subgroup or an attempt to force a result through something other than consensus-building).
Perhaps force of habit leads to looking at all ICANN participants through the prism of nationality or national interest. This is a very counterproductive approach in a Cross-Community Working Group (a relatively recent and still evolving experiment in ICANN working methods). These incorrect assumptions can lead to other even more negative behaviors, such as stereotyping participants and conspiracy theories, and even attempts to delegitimize other participants. Participants have different viewpoints and different opinions and come from different stakeholder communities, and should not be mushed together solely due to nationality. Such reductive and oppressive approaches should be disregarded and discarded, here as elsewhere.
It is quite exceptional to assert, without any basis, that an array of participants from different stakeholder communities are somehow "together in a well-orchestrated arrangement" on a "special mission" "protecting a particular group," solely based on their nationality. I am not aware of any such orchestration or collusion. It is even more remarkable to assert that this nationalistic "orchestration" extends to outside counsel engaged to assist the CCWG in its work.
I note that this very email thread proves the fallacy of this line of thinking. Three US participants responded to this thread; two raised concerns with Question 4, while the third supported Question 4.
I do not know who you speak for when you say "We," but if you do speak for a group of participants in the subgroup, that is the only "orchestration" I know of in this subgroup. I hope that there are few, if any, others who believe that this extreme approach is fruitful. I am concerned that the effect (if not the intent) of this email could be to sow division instead of building consensus, to undermine rather than support the work of the subgroup, to denigrate and even delegitimize participants rather than to treat them with respect and to "seek to understand their points of view <https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/expected-standards-2016-06-28-en> , " and to bring about the failure of this subgroup, the CCWG and even the multistakeholder model, instead of working to support, strengthen and succeed on all these fronts.
Instead, I hope that most, if not all, of the other participants in the subgroup are committed to working together, to supporting the work of the subgroup, to discussing matters of substance, and to working within and "ensuring the success of the [multistakeholder] model <https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/expected-standards-2016-06-28-en>." This model requires commitment, a recognition that the work is sometimes messy, and a recognition that consensus requires compromise. It's a model I strongly believe in, even when the results are less than optimal from my point of view (or from the point of view of my stakeholder community). Indeed, the strength of one's commitment to the model is revealed when things aren't going one's way.
I hope that you will reconsider your position and continue to work with the rest of us to support the subgroup and its work, rather than seek to stand in its way and stop its work. I look forward to your further positive contributions to the substance of the issues before us as we continue our work.
Best regards,
Greg
On Sat, Dec 31, 2016 at 5:35 PM, Kavouss Arasteh < kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear All,
People continue to push deleting Q4 .This is aggressive, selfish, narrow minded and divisionism. These people are all from one sector ,one country and opponent of multistakeholder.
They have a special mission to maintain the existing Jurisdiction which certainly protect them and disregard the others. If we look at their affiliation it is not surprising what they push for.
I assure you, either all 4 Questions or no questions.
Such counting is not valid due to the fact that an overwhelming majority are coming from one single country .These are those who impose us the current stru8cture of WS1 designed by lawyers from one country well paid and well done for that country.
They are protecting a particular group ,they are all together in a well-orchestrated arrangement.
They are, in fact against global multistahkeholder .
Their actions would certainly have counter reactions by others.
We will raise awareness of others in all fora.
What we did to laisse everybody was a mistake. We should have be more cautious to oppose to such single country stakeholder.
Sonner we will have open consultation on the internet in which we made every thing xclear to the people.
Please look at the opponents of question 4 . who they are ? where they come from ? whom they protect .
The answer is crystal clear.
I am suggesting to the CCWG CO-CHAIR TO STOP SUB GROUP ACRTIVITIES .
This sub group is influenced by few individual acting against thousands opf person who do not have the opportunity to participate and contribute.
They have no expertise. They have have resources.
Silence does not means no views nor does it means agreement .
We oppose to the holding of the meeting of 05 Januray. It serves nothing but protect these people from one single country.
Co- Chairs.
You need to intervene and instruct and advise.-
Regards
Kavouss
2016-12-31 23:13 GMT+01:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>:
Dear All, People pèreventing us to progess by pushing for Q
2016-12-31 22:00 GMT+01:00 McAuley, David <dmcauley@verisign.com>:
Thank you Greg for trying to help us navigate this difficult discussion.
If we somehow end up with questions 1-4 then I would support your strawman, except for the preamble where I support the proposed preamble.
In the meantime I am puzzled by where we find ourselves.
The poll regarding the proposed questions had 31 respondents. Questions 1-3 were supported by very wide margin, 29-2. Question 4 was supported by a very narrow margin, 17-14. And what amounted to question 5 (“If Question 4 is not approved, I support sending out a questionnaire containing only Questions 1-3”) was supported by a vote of 19-8 (with 4 not answering), a far greater margin than Q4.
What happened to the notion of sending Q’s 1-3 without Q4 based on the polling results? Question 5 decided Question 4 and the format of the survey already. As suggested by others, we should not waste any more time on this.
I suspect the questionnaire will be the primary focus of our call on Thursday Jan. 5. I will re-read a number of e-mails on the various sides of this issue and comment then.
But anticipation of that call raises a point that I believe is making our task more difficult. Participation rates are low, not just here but across WS2. Given the length and intensity of WS1 that may be understandable, nonetheless we are grappling with issues/questions that seem better suited to a forum other than WS2.
Back in September I wrote on list why I thought ICANN’s location was out of our scope – I stand by that e-mail ( http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ws2-jurisdiction/2016-Septemb er/000099.html). The questions we are wrestling with on list now seem far beyond our ability to answer, much less fix.
I am not saying the questions are improper or should never be raised – I am saying that they appear beyond our scope and capability.
David
David McAuley
International Policy Manager
Verisign Inc.
703-948-4154 <(703)%20948-4154>
*From:* ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org [mailto: ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Greg Shatan *Sent:* Friday, December 30, 2016 2:27 AM *To:* ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org *Subject:* [EXTERNAL] [Ws2-jurisdiction] REMINDER: Focus, Working Method and Revisions to Proposed Questions: RESPONSE REQUESTED [was: Jurisdiction Proposed Questions and Poll Results]
REMINDER to READ this email and RESPOND, at least with regard to the questionnaire (see attachment). I've slightly revised the email for clarity.
To try and focus this discussion, I'll provide a strawman for how to deal with the alternatives:
Preamble -- Use Alternative 1.
Question 1 -- Use Alternative 1.
Question 2 -- No change
Question 3 -- No change.
Question 4 -- Use Alternative 1.
Thank you for your responses.
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: *Greg Shatan* <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> Date: Tue, Dec 27, 2016 at 3:28 PM Subject: Focus, Working Method and Revisions to Proposed Questions: RESPONSE REQUESTED [was: Jurisdiction Proposed Questions and Poll Results] To: ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org
All,
I'm sending this to the Jurisdiction subgroup list, since this was initially send to a discussion thread on jurisdiction taking place on the CCWG list.
*Please respond here, rather than there. Thank you.*
Greg
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: *Greg Shatan* <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> Date: Tue, Dec 27, 2016 at 2:56 AM Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] RES: Jurisdiction Proposed Questions and Poll Results To: "accountability-cross-community@icann.org" < accountability-cross-community@icann.org>
All:
Two quick but important points:
1. We have strayed from the basic topic in front of us, which is to decide on the formulation of the questions to be sent out.
**
*I have gone through the emails and meeting notes and pulled the alternative formulations and revisions in to a single document, attached to this email. *
With regard to question 4, I believe that the best way to move forward is to see if one of the alternatives gets stronger support within the CCWG. If we can get to a point where there is broad support for the question without significant opposition that may resolve issues relating to whether and when this question will be sent out.
2. Our overall agreed-upon working method is to first identify, discuss and arrive at a list of
problems
, and then move on to identifying, discussing and arriving at a list of potential remedies for each
problem
on our list. We are still working on
problems
. For a remedy to be up for discussion when we move to discussing remedies, that remedy needs to provide a solution to a
problem
. We can't discuss a potential remedy without having a
problem
it is intended to solve. If there is a potential "remedy" but it does not solve any of our
problems
, we won't discuss it.
We've already put aside one potential "remedy" until we see whether we identify any
problems
it would solve -- the "remedy" of changing ICANN's jurisdiction of incorporation or headquarters location. "Immunity" is another potential remedy that we need to deal with the same way. Skipping forward to discussions of remedies is only slowing down our discussion of
problems
. I strongly suggest we refocus on
problems
, so that we can get to the discussion of remedies. Once we've agreed on a list of
problems
, a discussion of remedies will be more productive.
Our working method of dealing with
problems
first and then remedies may also help us find agreement on a way to deal with question 4. Questions 1-3 clearly deal with issues. Perhaps a version of question 4 that is limited to asking for
problems
will get broader support ("Alternative 1" on the attachment may fit this description.)
Greg
***The following responses were received on the Accountability list* :
*Parminder*:
Greg/ All
I think the Alternative 1, which you take as likely candidate for broader support, is fine. I list this formulation below:
What are the advantages or disadvantages, if any, relating to ICANN's jurisdiction*, particularly with regard to the actual operation of ICANN’s policies and accountability mechanisms? Please support your response with appropriate examples, references to specific laws, case studies, other studies, and analysis. In particular, please indicate if there are current or past instances that highlight such advantages or problems.
(* For these questions, “ICANN’s jurisdiction” refers to (a) ICANN being subject to U.S. and California law as a result of its incorporation and location in California, (b) ICANN being subject to the laws of any other country as a result of its location within or contacts with that country, or (c) any “choice of law” or venue provisions in agreements with ICANN.)
ENDS
Lets move on with it. We are spending too much time on framing a question.
*Kavouss Arasteh: *
Grec,
Tks again,
As I said I believe ,it is counter productive to discuss many alternative,
I could agree with formulation of Parminder
Regards
Kavouss
*Sam Lanfranco:*
Greg,
Thank you for presenting alternatives for reaching agreement on a* Roadmap for Moving Forward to identify operational issues embedded in the overall “jurisdiction” issue*. It is important to recognize that what is being proposed is the choice of roadmap for moving forward. Where this takes us will flow from the assembly of evidence, the application of analysis, and the resulting array of possible options for addressing jurisdiction base operational issues.
Sam Lanfranco
_______________________________________________ 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
Hello Kavouss, It looks like we are saying the same thing but your initial message wasn't in sync and I was simply pointing that out. Below again is what you wrote: "It is senseless to ask X to provide views on Y’s experience on issue Z The only entity who could provide her or his experience on issue Z is X AND not Y" The above simple means that if Y is the one that has a direct experience on issue Z then asking Y will be more helpful. However you indicated X in your second statement above. Perhaps what you meant to write is "Y AND not X" Anyway, let's leave all the semantics as I think we both agree that asking the one who has direct experience of the issue is usually more helpful. That said, using such basis to invalidate question 3 doesn't sound appropriate IMHO. My reason is that we don't have a list of those people who have the experience on a particular issue(we don't even know the issue). Hence the hope is that the people(Y) who have experience on specific issue(Z) relating to the question will respond. Also those who do not have direct experience(X) but provides verifiable facts[1] would also provide their input to the question. On a lighter note, it may be good to use more friendly word especially in a diverse group as this (re: senseless). Regards 1. Note that the question asks for facts by asking respondent to provide references. Sent from my LG G4 Kindly excuse brevity and typos On 1 Jan 2017 14:29, "Kavouss Arasteh" <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote: I disagree totally with you that asking Y to provide the experience of X on issue Z . It means that X went to the mountain and you ask Y to provide experience of X on mountain trip. What does it means You defend a wrong issue Let me ask you the following question. You went to country A and came back . People asking a another person to provide your experience on that travelling. Pls explain the process since that another person may have not travelled to that country at all. Regards 2017-01-01 13:29 GMT+01:00 Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com>:
Sent from my LG G4 Kindly excuse brevity and typos
On 1 Jan 2017 13:00, "Kavouss Arasteh" <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
Q3
It is senseless to ask X to provide views on Y’s experience on issue Z
The only entity who could provide her or his experience on issue Z is X AND not Y
SO: Just on your anology above, I think the better entity to provide a fact based experience of Z would be Y and NOT X. Certainly asking X to provide a view may not be senseless (depending on the goal) but may not be based on fact.
Overall I think this subgroup Members needs to calm down and both sides needs to stop being on the defensive. All we are talking about here are just questionnaire, and we can still administer more after analyzing the responses from the first set. I pray wisdom for the group leads and encouraging us all to listen to one another.
Wishing everyone a happy new year!
Regards
2017-01-01 10:56 GMT+01:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>:
Dear David,
Thank you very much for the wishes.
Thanks for your efforts to analyze the situation.
I hope you act as you have described.
Pls tell me what efforts you have made to reach consensus when in your last message to go back to the score cart and implicitly reject Q4.
If you really believed that everyone should work to build up consensus, you should not go back to counting infavour and against Q4 in comparing to Q 1-3.
You are a good communicator but the thoughts and ideas that you described should be implemented by you.
You have consistently opposed to Q4 from the outset why?
Once again you do not recognize the problems of others. You are saved thus you do not consider the problem of those who feel unsaved.
I do not believe the process would be helpful at all. But I joined other to agree raising questions know that those who analyze the results will do in the way that they wish.
There are many unanswered QUESTIONS.
Some of you from the very beginning rigorously and aggressively opposed to Q4 why?
I am aware what is behind the scene. One top official from a country in a formal meeting said”
“Take the jurisdiction off the table”
There are other questions as follows e.g
Can you tell me how a jurisdiction of a particular State could take action in regard with the sovereignty of another State?
Can you tell me why the parties to a contract cannot decide aposteriori on the jurisdiction to be in country A or Country B?
Can you tell me why ICANN could not have immunity from the Federal or State Laws of a given country and be subject to internationally agreed jurisdiction?
Can you tell me the essence of Q3 ,in asking Y to provide the experience of Y on a subject Z?
If there are dividing people is NOT me. It tis those who do not tolerate to also include Q4 together with other Qs .
Why you push for a different text of a lengthy preamble when everybody else agree with a shorten text? You seems not willing to join consensus and then accuse others dividing?
When almost everybody infavour of alternative 1 of Q4 with some modification and refinement, you come and oppose to that question?
Who is dividing?
Please also reconsider your position join others and agree to Q 4 and not again and again bring the results of the score cart?
It is quite clear that the number of participants from a single country dominate the number of participants of the rest of the countries attending the meeting .Then pls kindly do not count the results of the poll as it is not representative.
At this very day of the New Year, I do not wish to take more of your time and wish you and your respectful family and surrounding a very happy and prosperous New Year
Cheers
Kavouss
2017-01-01 9:17 GMT+01:00 Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com>:
Kavouss,
First, let me wish you and the other members of the Jurisdiction subgroup a Happy and Healthy New Year. I will also extend these wishes to the other members of the GAC, as you have chosen to send a copy of your email to that group.
This email seems both premature and disproportionate, when only two emails were sent in this thread expressing concerns with Question 4. Indeed, only a few participants had the opportunity to respond at all after my email was sent on Friday, since we are in the midst of a holiday period. As such, nothing has been decided, and the responses of most participants have not yet been received. As such, I was quite surprised to see an email seek to short-circuit an ongoing discussion.
The content of the email is also surprising, as it consists of a series of dramatic and unsupported assertions that are quite corrosive, both to the group and to many individual participants. I think that the subgroup would be far better served by sticking to the substance of the issues and seeking to work together and work through the issues. On December 25th, I wrote in an email to the subgroup:
We need to pay attention to how we engage with each other, and we need
to emphasize engagement on ideas and substance. Based on my participation in a number of working groups over the years, I've observed the following: In order to develop broad support for positions or decisions in any working group or subgroup (including this one), it is necessary for participants to strive to do three things: -- *Listen*: Take the time to understand the views of others in the group; don't dismiss views without considering their substance -- *Persuade*: Try to persuade others (through fact and logic) why your view makes sense and should be adopted; don't attempt to impose your view (e.g., by saying something "must" be done) -- *Compromise*: For a position to get broad support, it will need to reconcile opposing viewpoints. Participants will often need to move away from initial positions and "absolutes" to find common ground; the ultimate result may not be exactly what any participant or group of participants want. Without listening, persuasion has no chance to work. Without trying to persuade, others will not move to embrace your views. Without compromise, we will not arrive at positions that have broad support. The focus needs to be on facts, on ideas, on reasoning together. Focusing on identities and not on ideas will not lead to success. Playing up divisions based on identities does not lead to common ground. In my view, we need to work together as a group and concentrate on substance in order to be productive.
I wish that you had taken this to heart, rather than sending your email. Perhaps you missed my email. However, these concepts echo ICANN's Expected Standards of Behavior <https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/expected-standards-2016-06-28-en>, with which you are certainly familiar:
- *Listen* to the views of all stakeholders when considering policy issues. ICANN is a unique multi-stakeholder environment. Those who take part in the ICANN process must acknowledge the importance of all stakeholders and seek to understand their points of view.
- *Work* to build consensus with other stakeholders in order to find solutions to the issues that fall within the areas of ICANN's responsibility. The ICANN model is based on a bottom-up, consensus driven approach to policy development. Those who take part in the ICANN process must take responsibility for ensuring the success of the model by trying to build consensus with other participants.
The only way that this subgroup, or any subgroup or Working Group, will succeed is through building consensus (i.e., rough consensus). As the Standards of Behavior note, it is the responsibility of each participant to try to build consensus. It is antithetical to the consensus-building process to attempt to divide the subgroup into factions (or "camps") and to state that a large group of participants are opponents of the multistakeholder process (among many other unfortunate accusations, theories and characterizations below).
If you want all four questions to be sent out, you need to help build consensus in the subgroup that this is the right result, and you need to help the subgroup look for a form of question 4 that would get the broadest support. If you look at the email at the beginning of this thread, you will see that this is what I was trying to do (with no guarantee of success, of course). I don't think this email helps that process, to say the least. As such, it would seem that this email has exactly the opposite effect than was intended (unless the intended effect was something else entirely, such as an attempt to cause the failure of the subgroup or an attempt to force a result through something other than consensus-building).
Perhaps force of habit leads to looking at all ICANN participants through the prism of nationality or national interest. This is a very counterproductive approach in a Cross-Community Working Group (a relatively recent and still evolving experiment in ICANN working methods). These incorrect assumptions can lead to other even more negative behaviors, such as stereotyping participants and conspiracy theories, and even attempts to delegitimize other participants. Participants have different viewpoints and different opinions and come from different stakeholder communities, and should not be mushed together solely due to nationality. Such reductive and oppressive approaches should be disregarded and discarded, here as elsewhere.
It is quite exceptional to assert, without any basis, that an array of participants from different stakeholder communities are somehow "together in a well-orchestrated arrangement" on a "special mission" "protecting a particular group," solely based on their nationality. I am not aware of any such orchestration or collusion. It is even more remarkable to assert that this nationalistic "orchestration" extends to outside counsel engaged to assist the CCWG in its work.
I note that this very email thread proves the fallacy of this line of thinking. Three US participants responded to this thread; two raised concerns with Question 4, while the third supported Question 4.
I do not know who you speak for when you say "We," but if you do speak for a group of participants in the subgroup, that is the only "orchestration" I know of in this subgroup. I hope that there are few, if any, others who believe that this extreme approach is fruitful. I am concerned that the effect (if not the intent) of this email could be to sow division instead of building consensus, to undermine rather than support the work of the subgroup, to denigrate and even delegitimize participants rather than to treat them with respect and to "seek to understand their points of view <https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/expected-standards-2016-06-28-en> , " and to bring about the failure of this subgroup, the CCWG and even the multistakeholder model, instead of working to support, strengthen and succeed on all these fronts.
Instead, I hope that most, if not all, of the other participants in the subgroup are committed to working together, to supporting the work of the subgroup, to discussing matters of substance, and to working within and "ensuring the success of the [multistakeholder] model <https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/expected-standards-2016-06-28-en>." This model requires commitment, a recognition that the work is sometimes messy, and a recognition that consensus requires compromise. It's a model I strongly believe in, even when the results are less than optimal from my point of view (or from the point of view of my stakeholder community). Indeed, the strength of one's commitment to the model is revealed when things aren't going one's way.
I hope that you will reconsider your position and continue to work with the rest of us to support the subgroup and its work, rather than seek to stand in its way and stop its work. I look forward to your further positive contributions to the substance of the issues before us as we continue our work.
Best regards,
Greg
On Sat, Dec 31, 2016 at 5:35 PM, Kavouss Arasteh < kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear All,
People continue to push deleting Q4 .This is aggressive, selfish, narrow minded and divisionism. These people are all from one sector ,one country and opponent of multistakeholder.
They have a special mission to maintain the existing Jurisdiction which certainly protect them and disregard the others. If we look at their affiliation it is not surprising what they push for.
I assure you, either all 4 Questions or no questions.
Such counting is not valid due to the fact that an overwhelming majority are coming from one single country .These are those who impose us the current stru8cture of WS1 designed by lawyers from one country well paid and well done for that country.
They are protecting a particular group ,they are all together in a well-orchestrated arrangement.
They are, in fact against global multistahkeholder .
Their actions would certainly have counter reactions by others.
We will raise awareness of others in all fora.
What we did to laisse everybody was a mistake. We should have be more cautious to oppose to such single country stakeholder.
Sonner we will have open consultation on the internet in which we made every thing xclear to the people.
Please look at the opponents of question 4 . who they are ? where they come from ? whom they protect .
The answer is crystal clear.
I am suggesting to the CCWG CO-CHAIR TO STOP SUB GROUP ACRTIVITIES .
This sub group is influenced by few individual acting against thousands opf person who do not have the opportunity to participate and contribute.
They have no expertise. They have have resources.
Silence does not means no views nor does it means agreement .
We oppose to the holding of the meeting of 05 Januray. It serves nothing but protect these people from one single country.
Co- Chairs.
You need to intervene and instruct and advise.-
Regards
Kavouss
2016-12-31 23:13 GMT+01:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>:
Dear All, People pèreventing us to progess by pushing for Q
2016-12-31 22:00 GMT+01:00 McAuley, David <dmcauley@verisign.com>:
Thank you Greg for trying to help us navigate this difficult discussion.
If we somehow end up with questions 1-4 then I would support your strawman, except for the preamble where I support the proposed preamble.
In the meantime I am puzzled by where we find ourselves.
The poll regarding the proposed questions had 31 respondents. Questions 1-3 were supported by very wide margin, 29-2. Question 4 was supported by a very narrow margin, 17-14. And what amounted to question 5 (“If Question 4 is not approved, I support sending out a questionnaire containing only Questions 1-3”) was supported by a vote of 19-8 (with 4 not answering), a far greater margin than Q4.
What happened to the notion of sending Q’s 1-3 without Q4 based on the polling results? Question 5 decided Question 4 and the format of the survey already. As suggested by others, we should not waste any more time on this.
I suspect the questionnaire will be the primary focus of our call on Thursday Jan. 5. I will re-read a number of e-mails on the various sides of this issue and comment then.
But anticipation of that call raises a point that I believe is making our task more difficult. Participation rates are low, not just here but across WS2. Given the length and intensity of WS1 that may be understandable, nonetheless we are grappling with issues/questions that seem better suited to a forum other than WS2.
Back in September I wrote on list why I thought ICANN’s location was out of our scope – I stand by that e-mail ( http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ws2-jurisdiction/2016-Septemb er/000099.html). The questions we are wrestling with on list now seem far beyond our ability to answer, much less fix.
I am not saying the questions are improper or should never be raised – I am saying that they appear beyond our scope and capability.
David
David McAuley
International Policy Manager
Verisign Inc.
703-948-4154 <(703)%20948-4154>
*From:* ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org [mailto: ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Greg Shatan *Sent:* Friday, December 30, 2016 2:27 AM *To:* ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org *Subject:* [EXTERNAL] [Ws2-jurisdiction] REMINDER: Focus, Working Method and Revisions to Proposed Questions: RESPONSE REQUESTED [was: Jurisdiction Proposed Questions and Poll Results]
REMINDER to READ this email and RESPOND, at least with regard to the questionnaire (see attachment). I've slightly revised the email for clarity.
To try and focus this discussion, I'll provide a strawman for how to deal with the alternatives:
Preamble -- Use Alternative 1.
Question 1 -- Use Alternative 1.
Question 2 -- No change
Question 3 -- No change.
Question 4 -- Use Alternative 1.
Thank you for your responses.
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: *Greg Shatan* <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> Date: Tue, Dec 27, 2016 at 3:28 PM Subject: Focus, Working Method and Revisions to Proposed Questions: RESPONSE REQUESTED [was: Jurisdiction Proposed Questions and Poll Results] To: ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org
All,
I'm sending this to the Jurisdiction subgroup list, since this was initially send to a discussion thread on jurisdiction taking place on the CCWG list.
*Please respond here, rather than there. Thank you.*
Greg
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: *Greg Shatan* <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> Date: Tue, Dec 27, 2016 at 2:56 AM Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] RES: Jurisdiction Proposed Questions and Poll Results To: "accountability-cross-community@icann.org" < accountability-cross-community@icann.org>
All:
Two quick but important points:
1. We have strayed from the basic topic in front of us, which is to decide on the formulation of the questions to be sent out.
**
*I have gone through the emails and meeting notes and pulled the alternative formulations and revisions in to a single document, attached to this email. *
With regard to question 4, I believe that the best way to move forward is to see if one of the alternatives gets stronger support within the CCWG. If we can get to a point where there is broad support for the question without significant opposition that may resolve issues relating to whether and when this question will be sent out.
2. Our overall agreed-upon working method is to first identify, discuss and arrive at a list of
problems
, and then move on to identifying, discussing and arriving at a list of potential remedies for each
problem
on our list. We are still working on
problems
. For a remedy to be up for discussion when we move to discussing remedies, that remedy needs to provide a solution to a
problem
. We can't discuss a potential remedy without having a
problem
it is intended to solve. If there is a potential "remedy" but it does not solve any of our
problems
, we won't discuss it.
We've already put aside one potential "remedy" until we see whether we identify any
problems
it would solve -- the "remedy" of changing ICANN's jurisdiction of incorporation or headquarters location. "Immunity" is another potential remedy that we need to deal with the same way. Skipping forward to discussions of remedies is only slowing down our discussion of
problems
. I strongly suggest we refocus on
problems
, so that we can get to the discussion of remedies. Once we've agreed on a list of
problems
, a discussion of remedies will be more productive.
Our working method of dealing with
problems
first and then remedies may also help us find agreement on a way to deal with question 4. Questions 1-3 clearly deal with issues. Perhaps a version of question 4 that is limited to asking for
problems
will get broader support ("Alternative 1" on the attachment may fit this description.)
Greg
***The following responses were received on the Accountability list* :
*Parminder*:
Greg/ All
I think the Alternative 1, which you take as likely candidate for broader support, is fine. I list this formulation below:
What are the advantages or disadvantages, if any, relating to ICANN's jurisdiction*, particularly with regard to the actual operation of ICANN’s policies and accountability mechanisms? Please support your response with appropriate examples, references to specific laws, case studies, other studies, and analysis. In particular, please indicate if there are current or past instances that highlight such advantages or problems.
(* For these questions, “ICANN’s jurisdiction” refers to (a) ICANN being subject to U.S. and California law as a result of its incorporation and location in California, (b) ICANN being subject to the laws of any other country as a result of its location within or contacts with that country, or (c) any “choice of law” or venue provisions in agreements with ICANN.)
ENDS
Lets move on with it. We are spending too much time on framing a question.
*Kavouss Arasteh: *
Grec,
Tks again,
As I said I believe ,it is counter productive to discuss many alternative,
I could agree with formulation of Parminder
Regards
Kavouss
*Sam Lanfranco:*
Greg,
Thank you for presenting alternatives for reaching agreement on a* Roadmap for Moving Forward to identify operational issues embedded in the overall “jurisdiction” issue*. It is important to recognize that what is being proposed is the choice of roadmap for moving forward. Where this takes us will flow from the assembly of evidence, the application of analysis, and the resulting array of possible options for addressing jurisdiction base operational issues.
Sam Lanfranco
_______________________________________________ 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
I agree with Greg that “The content of the email is also surprising, as it consists of a series of dramatic and unsupported assertions that are quite corrosive, both to the group and to many individual participants. “ and that “It is antithetical to the consensus-building process to attempt to divide the subgroup into factions (or "camps") and to state that a large group of participants are opponents of the multistakeholder process (among many other unfortunate accusations, theories and characterizations below).” I have previously expressed my own personal concerns regarding these attempts to divide us by nation and region. I disagree somewhat with the statement “Perhaps force of habit leads to looking at all ICANN participants through the prism of nationality or national interest.” in that I have never before, in ten years of ICANN experience, witnessed a participant in an ICANN process contend that we should match the opinions being expressed by a community member with their “affiliation” based upon region/nation of origin and then presume a bias or agenda based upon that affiliation. That is not habitual conduct within the broad ICANN community (I cannot attest for GAC practice) and is indeed corrosive precisely because, in a diverse global community such as that of ICANN, evaluating views, positions, and proposals on any basis other than their own merits will be the beginning of the end of a functional multistakeholder process. Such attempted politicization does not serve the interests of ICANN or its community. Ironically, the first group that would have their views discounted if we adopted such an unfortunate perspective would be that of GAC members taking part in a CCWG process, as their views must be ascribed to the policy position and national interests of the nation-state they represent and discounted accordingly. Further, their public views may be in furtherance of an unstated political agenda. While Greg quoted some of ICANN’s Expected Standards of Behavior, I find this portion must relevant to the present situation: * Respect all members of the ICANN community equally, behave in a professional manner and demonstrate appropriate behavior. ICANN strives to create and maintain an environment in which people of many different backgrounds and cultures are treated with dignity, decency, and respect. Specifically, participants in the ICANN process must not engage in any type of harassment. Generally, harassment is considered unwelcome hostile or intimidating behavior -- in particular, speech or behavior that is sexually aggressive or that intimidates based on attributes such as race, gender, ethnicity, religion, age, color, national origin, ancestry, disability or medical condition, sexual orientation, or gender identity. (Emphasis added) I find the following statement perilously close to being in violation of that Standard: Such counting is not valid due to the fact that an overwhelming majority are coming from one single country .These are those who impose us the current stru8cture of WS1 designed by lawyers from one country well paid and well done for that country. They are protecting a particular group ,they are all together in a well-orchestrated arrangement. They are, in fact against global multistahkeholder . Their actions would certainly have counter reactions by others. (Emphasis added) These are not respectful statements and they seek to denigrate the views of certain CCWG participants on the basis of their national origin, and hint at intimidation by threat of “counter reactions by others”. This is not a constructive manner for the important work before this subgroup and I certainly hope that it ceases before the rapporteurs are called upon to uphold the Standards that allow diverse stakeholders to cooperate constructively and disagree agreeably. Please people – R-E-S-P-E-C-T. Thank you. Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597/Direct 202-559-8750/Fax 202-255-6172/Cell Twitter: @VlawDC "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey From: ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Greg Shatan Sent: Sunday, January 01, 2017 3:18 AM To: Kavouss Arasteh Cc: gac@icann.org; Perez Galindo, Rafael; Olga Cavalli; ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org; Alice Munyua Subject: Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] REMINDER: Focus, Working Method and Revisions to Proposed Questions: RESPONSE REQUESTED [was: Jurisdiction Proposed Questions and Poll Results] Kavouss, First, let me wish you and the other members of the Jurisdiction subgroup a Happy and Healthy New Year. I will also extend these wishes to the other members of the GAC, as you have chosen to send a copy of your email to that group. This email seems both premature and disproportionate, when only two emails were sent in this thread expressing concerns with Question 4. Indeed, only a few participants had the opportunity to respond at all after my email was sent on Friday, since we are in the midst of a holiday period. As such, nothing has been decided, and the responses of most participants have not yet been received. As such, I was quite surprised to see an email seek to short-circuit an ongoing discussion. The content of the email is also surprising, as it consists of a series of dramatic and unsupported assertions that are quite corrosive, both to the group and to many individual participants. I think that the subgroup would be far better served by sticking to the substance of the issues and seeking to work together and work through the issues. On December 25th, I wrote in an email to the subgroup: We need to pay attention to how we engage with each other, and we need to emphasize engagement on ideas and substance. Based on my participation in a number of working groups over the years, I've observed the following: In order to develop broad support for positions or decisions in any working group or subgroup (including this one), it is necessary for participants to strive to do three things: -- Listen: Take the time to understand the views of others in the group; don't dismiss views without considering their substance -- Persuade: Try to persuade others (through fact and logic) why your view makes sense and should be adopted; don't attempt to impose your view (e.g., by saying something "must" be done) -- Compromise: For a position to get broad support, it will need to reconcile opposing viewpoints. Participants will often need to move away from initial positions and "absolutes" to find common ground; the ultimate result may not be exactly what any participant or group of participants want. Without listening, persuasion has no chance to work. Without trying to persuade, others will not move to embrace your views. Without compromise, we will not arrive at positions that have broad support. The focus needs to be on facts, on ideas, on reasoning together. Focusing on identities and not on ideas will not lead to success. Playing up divisions based on identities does not lead to common ground. In my view, we need to work together as a group and concentrate on substance in order to be productive. I wish that you had taken this to heart, rather than sending your email. Perhaps you missed my email. However, these concepts echo ICANN's Expected Standards of Behavior<https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/expected-standards-2016-06-28-en>, with which you are certainly familiar: · Listen to the views of all stakeholders when considering policy issues. ICANN is a unique multi-stakeholder environment. Those who take part in the ICANN process must acknowledge the importance of all stakeholders and seek to understand their points of view. · Work to build consensus with other stakeholders in order to find solutions to the issues that fall within the areas of ICANN's responsibility. The ICANN model is based on a bottom-up, consensus driven approach to policy development. Those who take part in the ICANN process must take responsibility for ensuring the success of the model by trying to build consensus with other participants. The only way that this subgroup, or any subgroup or Working Group, will succeed is through building consensus (i.e., rough consensus). As the Standards of Behavior note, it is the responsibility of each participant to try to build consensus. It is antithetical to the consensus-building process to attempt to divide the subgroup into factions (or "camps") and to state that a large group of participants are opponents of the multistakeholder process (among many other unfortunate accusations, theories and characterizations below). If you want all four questions to be sent out, you need to help build consensus in the subgroup that this is the right result, and you need to help the subgroup look for a form of question 4 that would get the broadest support. If you look at the email at the beginning of this thread, you will see that this is what I was trying to do (with no guarantee of success, of course). I don't think this email helps that process, to say the least. As such, it would seem that this email has exactly the opposite effect than was intended (unless the intended effect was something else entirely, such as an attempt to cause the failure of the subgroup or an attempt to force a result through something other than consensus-building). Perhaps force of habit leads to looking at all ICANN participants through the prism of nationality or national interest. This is a very counterproductive approach in a Cross-Community Working Group (a relatively recent and still evolving experiment in ICANN working methods). These incorrect assumptions can lead to other even more negative behaviors, such as stereotyping participants and conspiracy theories, and even attempts to delegitimize other participants. Participants have different viewpoints and different opinions and come from different stakeholder communities, and should not be mushed together solely due to nationality. Such reductive and oppressive approaches should be disregarded and discarded, here as elsewhere. It is quite exceptional to assert, without any basis, that an array of participants from different stakeholder communities are somehow "together in a well-orchestrated arrangement" on a "special mission" "protecting a particular group," solely based on their nationality. I am not aware of any such orchestration or collusion. It is even more remarkable to assert that this nationalistic "orchestration" extends to outside counsel engaged to assist the CCWG in its work. I note that this very email thread proves the fallacy of this line of thinking. Three US participants responded to this thread; two raised concerns with Question 4, while the third supported Question 4. I do not know who you speak for when you say "We," but if you do speak for a group of participants in the subgroup, that is the only "orchestration" I know of in this subgroup. I hope that there are few, if any, others who believe that this extreme approach is fruitful. I am concerned that the effect (if not the intent) of this email could be to sow division instead of building consensus, to undermine rather than support the work of the subgroup, to denigrate and even delegitimize participants rather than to treat them with respect and to "seek to understand their points of view<https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/expected-standards-2016-06-28-en> , " and to bring about the failure of this subgroup, the CCWG and even the multistakeholder model, instead of working to support, strengthen and succeed on all these fronts. Instead, I hope that most, if not all, of the other participants in the subgroup are committed to working together, to supporting the work of the subgroup, to discussing matters of substance, and to working within and "ensuring the success of the [multistakeholder] model<https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/expected-standards-2016-06-28-en>." This model requires commitment, a recognition that the work is sometimes messy, and a recognition that consensus requires compromise. It's a model I strongly believe in, even when the results are less than optimal from my point of view (or from the point of view of my stakeholder community). Indeed, the strength of one's commitment to the model is revealed when things aren't going one's way. I hope that you will reconsider your position and continue to work with the rest of us to support the subgroup and its work, rather than seek to stand in its way and stop its work. I look forward to your further positive contributions to the substance of the issues before us as we continue our work. Best regards, Greg On Sat, Dec 31, 2016 at 5:35 PM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> wrote: Dear All, People continue to push deleting Q4 .This is aggressive, selfish, narrow minded and divisionism. These people are all from one sector ,one country and opponent of multistakeholder. They have a special mission to maintain the existing Jurisdiction which certainly protect them and disregard the others. If we look at their affiliation it is not surprising what they push for. I assure you, either all 4 Questions or no questions. Such counting is not valid due to the fact that an overwhelming majority are coming from one single country .These are those who impose us the current stru8cture of WS1 designed by lawyers from one country well paid and well done for that country. They are protecting a particular group ,they are all together in a well-orchestrated arrangement. They are, in fact against global multistahkeholder . Their actions would certainly have counter reactions by others. We will raise awareness of others in all fora. What we did to laisse everybody was a mistake. We should have be more cautious to oppose to such single country stakeholder. Sonner we will have open consultation on the internet in which we made every thing xclear to the people. Please look at the opponents of question 4 . who they are ? where they come from ? whom they protect . The answer is crystal clear. I am suggesting to the CCWG CO-CHAIR TO STOP SUB GROUP ACRTIVITIES . This sub group is influenced by few individual acting against thousands opf person who do not have the opportunity to participate and contribute. They have no expertise. They have have resources. Silence does not means no views nor does it means agreement . We oppose to the holding of the meeting of 05 Januray. It serves nothing but protect these people from one single country. Co- Chairs. You need to intervene and instruct and advise.- Regards Kavouss 2016-12-31 23:13 GMT+01:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>>: Dear All, People pèreventing us to progess by pushing for Q 2016-12-31 22:00 GMT+01:00 McAuley, David <dmcauley@verisign.com<mailto:dmcauley@verisign.com>>: Thank you Greg for trying to help us navigate this difficult discussion. If we somehow end up with questions 1-4 then I would support your strawman, except for the preamble where I support the proposed preamble. In the meantime I am puzzled by where we find ourselves. The poll regarding the proposed questions had 31 respondents. Questions 1-3 were supported by very wide margin, 29-2. Question 4 was supported by a very narrow margin, 17-14. And what amounted to question 5 (“If Question 4 is not approved, I support sending out a questionnaire containing only Questions 1-3”) was supported by a vote of 19-8 (with 4 not answering), a far greater margin than Q4. What happened to the notion of sending Q’s 1-3 without Q4 based on the polling results? Question 5 decided Question 4 and the format of the survey already. As suggested by others, we should not waste any more time on this. I suspect the questionnaire will be the primary focus of our call on Thursday Jan. 5. I will re-read a number of e-mails on the various sides of this issue and comment then. But anticipation of that call raises a point that I believe is making our task more difficult. Participation rates are low, not just here but across WS2. Given the length and intensity of WS1 that may be understandable, nonetheless we are grappling with issues/questions that seem better suited to a forum other than WS2. Back in September I wrote on list why I thought ICANN’s location was out of our scope – I stand by that e-mail (http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ws2-jurisdiction/2016-September/000099.html). The questions we are wrestling with on list now seem far beyond our ability to answer, much less fix. I am not saying the questions are improper or should never be raised – I am saying that they appear beyond our scope and capability. David David McAuley International Policy Manager Verisign Inc. 703-948-4154<tel:(703)%20948-4154> From: ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org<mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org<mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Greg Shatan Sent: Friday, December 30, 2016 2:27 AM To: ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org<mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> Subject: [EXTERNAL] [Ws2-jurisdiction] REMINDER: Focus, Working Method and Revisions to Proposed Questions: RESPONSE REQUESTED [was: Jurisdiction Proposed Questions and Poll Results] REMINDER to READ this email and RESPOND, at least with regard to the questionnaire (see attachment). I've slightly revised the email for clarity. To try and focus this discussion, I'll provide a strawman for how to deal with the alternatives: Preamble -- Use Alternative 1. Question 1 -- Use Alternative 1. Question 2 -- No change Question 3 -- No change. Question 4 -- Use Alternative 1. Thank you for your responses. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> Date: Tue, Dec 27, 2016 at 3:28 PM Subject: Focus, Working Method and Revisions to Proposed Questions: RESPONSE REQUESTED [was: Jurisdiction Proposed Questions and Poll Results] To: ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org<mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> All, I'm sending this to the Jurisdiction subgroup list, since this was initially send to a discussion thread on jurisdiction taking place on the CCWG list. Please respond here, rather than there. Thank you. Greg ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> Date: Tue, Dec 27, 2016 at 2:56 AM Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] RES: Jurisdiction Proposed Questions and Poll Results To: "accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>" <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> All: Two quick but important points: 1. We have strayed from the basic topic in front of us, which is to decide on the formulation of the questions to be sent out. I have gone through the emails and meeting notes and pulled the alternative formulations and revisions in to a single document, attached to this email. With regard to question 4, I believe that the best way to move forward is to see if one of the alternatives gets stronger support within the CCWG. If we can get to a point where there is broad support for the question without significant opposition that may resolve issues relating to whether and when this question will be sent out. 2. Our overall agreed-upon working method is to first identify, discuss and arrive at a list of problems , and then move on to identifying, discussing and arriving at a list of potential remedies for each problem on our list. We are still working on problems . For a remedy to be up for discussion when we move to discussing remedies, that remedy needs to provide a solution to a problem . We can't discuss a potential remedy without having a problem it is intended to solve. If there is a potential "remedy" but it does not solve any of our problems , we won't discuss it. We've already put aside one potential "remedy" until we see whether we identify any problems it would solve -- the "remedy" of changing ICANN's jurisdiction of incorporation or headquarters location. "Immunity" is another potential remedy that we need to deal with the same way. Skipping forward to discussions of remedies is only slowing down our discussion of problems . I strongly suggest we refocus on problems , so that we can get to the discussion of remedies. Once we've agreed on a list of problems , a discussion of remedies will be more productive. Our working method of dealing with problems first and then remedies may also help us find agreement on a way to deal with question 4. Questions 1-3 clearly deal with issues. Perhaps a version of question 4 that is limited to asking for problems will get broader support ("Alternative 1" on the attachment may fit this description.) Greg The following responses were received on the Accountability list: Parminder: Greg/ All I think the Alternative 1, which you take as likely candidate for broader support, is fine. I list this formulation below: What are the advantages or disadvantages, if any, relating to ICANN's jurisdiction*, particularly with regard to the actual operation of ICANN’s policies and accountability mechanisms? Please support your response with appropriate examples, references to specific laws, case studies, other studies, and analysis. In particular, please indicate if there are current or past instances that highlight such advantages or problems. (* For these questions, “ICANN’s jurisdiction” refers to (a) ICANN being subject to U.S. and California law as a result of its incorporation and location in California, (b) ICANN being subject to the laws of any other country as a result of its location within or contacts with that country, or (c) any “choice of law” or venue provisions in agreements with ICANN.) ENDS Lets move on with it. We are spending too much time on framing a question. Kavouss Arasteh: Grec, Tks again, As I said I believe ,it is counter productive to discuss many alternative, I could agree with formulation of Parminder Regards Kavouss Sam Lanfranco: Greg, Thank you for presenting alternatives for reaching agreement on a Roadmap for Moving Forward to identify operational issues embedded in the overall “jurisdiction” issue. It is important to recognize that what is being proposed is the choice of roadmap for moving forward. Where this takes us will flow from the assembly of evidence, the application of analysis, and the resulting array of possible options for addressing jurisdiction base operational issues. Sam Lanfranco _______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org<mailto:Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction ________________________________ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com> Version: 2016.0.7924 / Virus Database: 4739/13633 - Release Date: 12/22/16 Internal Virus Database is out of date.
participants (12)
-
avri doria -
Greg Shatan -
Kavouss Arasteh -
Mathieu Weill -
matthew shears -
McAuley, David -
Olawale Bakare -
parminder -
Paul Rosenzweig -
Phil Corwin -
Seun Ojedeji -
Tijani BEN JEMAA