AOC Termination Letter Emphasizes Commitment to US Jurisdiction -- RE: Jurisdiction Questionnaire: RESPONSE REQUESTED
Of significant relevance to this subgroup and our ongoing discussion, I note that a letter formally terminating the Affirmation of Commitments between ICANN and the United States has been posted at https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/strickling-to-crocker-0... From the first page of the letter signed by ICANN Board Chairman Steve Crocker on January 3, 2017: ICANN’s commitment to remain a not-for-profit corporation, headquartered in the United States of America with offices around the world is embedded in ICANN’s Articles of Incorporation, which requires community agreement to modify, and in the Bylaws, which specify that ICANN’s California office is its principal place of business. (Emphasis added) 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: Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, January 09, 2017 6:52 PM To: MSSI Secretariat Cc: Paul Rosenzweig; Phil Corwin; Mueller, Milton L; ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org Subject: Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Jurisdiction Questionnaire: RESPONSE REQUESTED Seeing some support for David McAuley's suggestion for Question 4 and some support for Alternative 1, I wonder if a combination of the two might be able to gain consensus support. Below (and attached in redline) is my suggested combination: Are you aware of any material, documented instance(s) where ICANN has been unable to pursue the actual operation of its policies and accountability mechanisms because of ICANN’s jurisdiction? If so, please provide documentation, including specific examples and references to specific laws. Are you aware of and able to document the existence of an alternative jurisdiction where ICANN would not be so prevented from pursuing the actual operation of ICANN’s policies and accountability mechanisms? If so, please provide documentation, including specific examples, references to specific laws, case studies, other studies, and analysis. I look forward to discussion of this and the other alternatives regarding Question 4 on our call tomorrow, and before that, on this list. Greg On Mon, Jan 9, 2017 at 3:52 PM, MSSI Secretariat <mssi-secretariat@icann.org<mailto:mssi-secretariat@icann.org>> wrote: Hello all, In reply to Paul Rosenzweig, the Jurisdiction meeting on Tuesday, 10 January is at 13:00 UTC. With kind regards, Brenda Brewer, Projects & Operations Assistant Multistakeholder Strategy & Strategic Initiatives (MSSI) Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) From: <ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org<mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com<mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com>> Date: Monday, January 9, 2017 at 2:46 PM To: 'Phil Corwin' <psc@vlaw-dc.com<mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com>>, "'Mueller, Milton L'" <milton@gatech.edu<mailto:milton@gatech.edu>> Cc: "ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org<mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org>" <ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org<mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Jurisdiction Questionnaire: RESPONSE REQUESTED What time is the call tomorrow? I apologize, but I lost track of our scheduling decisions. Paul Paul Rosenzweig paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com<mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> O: +1 (202) 547-0660<tel:(202)%20547-0660> M: +1 (202) 329-9650<tel:(202)%20329-9650> VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739<tel:(202)%20738-1739> www.redbranchconsulting.com[redbranchconsulting.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.redbranchconsulting....> My PGP Key: https://keys.mailvelope.com/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x9A830097CA066684[keys.mailvelope.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__keys.mailvelope.com_pks_lookup-3Fop-3Dget-26search-3D0x9A830097CA066684&d=DgMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=kbiQDH54980u4nTPfwdloDLY6-6F24x0ArAvhdeDvvc&m=nfCiwapWoYHvCLBz3QwPV-Y_rEkBKbBcjkF01YjHIU4&s=o6SpWL_y9zYaTmi-HIsDy5L4-EavY5iLy3Wj1r03U6M&e=> From: Phil Corwin [mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com<mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com>] Sent: Monday, January 9, 2017 3:16 PM To: Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com<mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com>>; 'Mueller, Milton L' <milton@gatech.edu<mailto:milton@gatech.edu>> Cc: ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org<mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> Subject: RE: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Jurisdiction Questionnaire: RESPONSE REQUESTED Whatever the WG’s decision, I certainly hope we can decide this with finality on tomorrow’s call. Because right now we are like a car spinning its tires and just sinking deeper into the mud. We have already spent far too much time on this questionnaire matter. Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597<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] On Behalf Of Paul Rosenzweig Sent: Monday, January 09, 2017 3:02 PM To: 'Mueller, Milton L' Cc: ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org<mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Jurisdiction Questionnaire: RESPONSE REQUESTED I gather, however, that some disagree and say “all now or none ever.” If that is my choice I choose none. If the idea of separation gains any traction, I’d be open to consideration but I fear it would not bet any better definition later and we would just be kicking the can down the road. Paul Paul Rosenzweig paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com<mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> O: +1 (202) 547-0660<tel:(202)%20547-0660> M: +1 (202) 329-9650<tel:(202)%20329-9650> VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739<tel:(202)%20738-1739> www.redbranchconsulting.com[redbranchconsulting.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.redbranchconsulting....> My PGP Key: https://keys.mailvelope.com/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x9A830097CA066684[keys.mailvelope.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__keys.mailvelope.com_pks_lookup-3Fop-3Dget-26search-3D0x9A830097CA066684&d=DgMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=kbiQDH54980u4nTPfwdloDLY6-6F24x0ArAvhdeDvvc&m=nfCiwapWoYHvCLBz3QwPV-Y_rEkBKbBcjkF01YjHIU4&s=o6SpWL_y9zYaTmi-HIsDy5L4-EavY5iLy3Wj1r03U6M&e=> From: Mueller, Milton L [mailto:milton@gatech.edu] Sent: Monday, January 9, 2017 2:28 PM To: Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com<mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com>> Cc: ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org<mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> Subject: RE: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Jurisdiction Questionnaire: RESPONSE REQUESTED Paul Others in the group feel strongly that question 4 should go out. Some feel so strongly that they are of the view that it is all or nothing. While I don’t agree with them and while I certainly don’t agree with the idea that saying “all or nothing” is respectful of other people, I am not going to try any longer to change their minds. MM: Those who suggest that we should not send out a fact-finding missive at all because of Q4 also seem to be taking an “all or nothing approach” are they not? The reasonable solution, as I have said before, is to separate Q4 from the others and work on it some more to make it take a form that is acceptable to a broader range of WG participants. ________________________________ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com[avg.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.avg.com_email-2Dsign...> Version: 2016.0.7996 / Virus Database: 4749/13706 - Release Date: 01/04/17 _______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org<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/email-signature> Version: 2016.0.7996 / Virus Database: 4749/13706 - Release Date: 01/04/17
Hello Phil, Thanks and there is this section "...which requires community agreement to modify.." So I think we are in order. No? Regards Sent from my LG G4 Kindly excuse brevity and typos On 10 Jan 2017 1:08 a.m., "Phil Corwin" <psc@vlaw-dc.com> wrote:
Of significant relevance to this subgroup and our ongoing discussion, I note that a letter formally terminating the Affirmation of Commitments between ICANN and the United States has been posted at https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/ strickling-to-crocker-06jan17-en.pdf
From the first page of the letter signed by ICANN Board Chairman Steve Crocker on January 3, 2017:
*ICANN’s commitment to remain* a not-for-profit corporation, *headquartered in the United States of America* with offices around the world is embedded in ICANN’s Articles of Incorporation, which requires community agreement to modify, and in the Bylaws, which *specify that ICANN’s California office is its principal place of business*. (Emphasis added)
*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:* Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com] *Sent:* Monday, January 09, 2017 6:52 PM *To:* MSSI Secretariat *Cc:* Paul Rosenzweig; Phil Corwin; Mueller, Milton L; ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Jurisdiction Questionnaire: RESPONSE REQUESTED
Seeing some support for David McAuley's suggestion for Question 4 and some support for Alternative 1, I wonder if a combination of the two might be able to gain consensus support. Below (and attached in redline) is my suggested combination:
Are you aware of any material, documented instance(s) where ICANN has been unable to pursue the actual operation of its policies and accountability mechanisms because of ICANN’s jurisdiction? If so, please provide documentation, including specific examples and references to specific laws.
Are you aware of and able to document the existence of an alternative jurisdiction where ICANN would not be so prevented from pursuing the actual operation of ICANN’s policies and accountability mechanisms? If so, please provide documentation, including specific examples, references to specific laws, case studies, other studies, and analysis.
I look forward to discussion of this and the other alternatives regarding Question 4 on our call tomorrow, and before that, on this list.
Greg
On Mon, Jan 9, 2017 at 3:52 PM, MSSI Secretariat < mssi-secretariat@icann.org> wrote:
Hello all,
In reply to Paul Rosenzweig, the Jurisdiction meeting on Tuesday, 10 January is at 13:00 UTC.
With kind regards,
*Brenda Brewer, Projects & Operations Assistant *
Multistakeholder Strategy & Strategic Initiatives (MSSI)
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
*From: *<ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> *Date: *Monday, January 9, 2017 at 2:46 PM *To: *'Phil Corwin' <psc@vlaw-dc.com>, "'Mueller, Milton L'" < milton@gatech.edu> *Cc: *"ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org" <ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> *Subject: *Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Jurisdiction Questionnaire: RESPONSE REQUESTED
What time is the call tomorrow? I apologize, but I lost track of our scheduling decisions.
Paul
Paul Rosenzweig
paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com
O: +1 (202) 547-0660 <(202)%20547-0660>
M: +1 (202) 329-9650 <(202)%20329-9650>
VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 <(202)%20738-1739>
www.redbranchconsulting.com[redbranchconsulting.com] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.redbranchconsulting....>
My PGP Key: https://keys.mailvelope.com/pks/lookup?op=get&search= 0x9A830097CA066684[keys.mailvelope.com] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__keys.mailvelope.com_pks...>
*From:* Phil Corwin [mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com] *Sent:* Monday, January 9, 2017 3:16 PM *To:* Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com>; 'Mueller, Milton L' <milton@gatech.edu> *Cc:* ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org *Subject:* RE: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Jurisdiction Questionnaire: RESPONSE REQUESTED
Whatever the WG’s decision, I certainly hope we can decide this with finality on tomorrow’s call. Because right now we are like a car spinning its tires and just sinking deeper into the mud. We have already spent far too much time on this questionnaire matter.
*Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal*
*Virtualaw LLC*
*1155 F Street, NW*
*Suite 1050*
*Washington, DC 20004*
*202-559-8597 <(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 <ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Paul Rosenzweig *Sent:* Monday, January 09, 2017 3:02 PM *To:* 'Mueller, Milton L' *Cc:* ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Jurisdiction Questionnaire: RESPONSE REQUESTED
I gather, however, that some disagree and say “all now or none ever.” If that is my choice I choose none. If the idea of separation gains any traction, I’d be open to consideration but I fear it would not bet any better definition later and we would just be kicking the can down the road.
Paul
Paul Rosenzweig
paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com
O: +1 (202) 547-0660 <(202)%20547-0660>
M: +1 (202) 329-9650 <(202)%20329-9650>
VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 <(202)%20738-1739>
www.redbranchconsulting.com[redbranchconsulting.com] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.redbranchconsulting....>
My PGP Key: https://keys.mailvelope.com/pks/lookup?op=get&search= 0x9A830097CA066684[keys.mailvelope.com] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__keys.mailvelope.com_pks...>
*From:* Mueller, Milton L [mailto:milton@gatech.edu <milton@gatech.edu>] *Sent:* Monday, January 9, 2017 2:28 PM *To:* Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> *Cc:* ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org *Subject:* RE: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Jurisdiction Questionnaire: RESPONSE REQUESTED
Paul
Others in the group feel strongly that question 4 should go out. Some feel so strongly that they are of the view that it is all or nothing. While I don’t agree with them and while I certainly don’t agree with the idea that saying “all or nothing” is respectful of other people, I am not going to try any longer to change their minds.
MM: Those who suggest that we should not send out a fact-finding missive at all because of Q4 also seem to be taking an “all or nothing approach” are they not?
The reasonable solution, as I have said before, is to separate Q4 from the others and work on it some more to make it take a form that is acceptable to a broader range of WG participants.
------------------------------
No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com[avg.com] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.avg.com_email-2Dsign...> Version: 2016.0.7996 / Virus Database: 4749/13706 - Release Date: 01/04/17
_______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
------------------------------
No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com/email-signature> Version: 2016.0.7996 / Virus Database: 4749/13706 - Release Date: 01/04/17
_______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
Seun, I don't know what you mean by "in order." In any event, any change to the Articles of Incorporation requires the approval of the Empowered Community and the ICANN Board, pursuant to ICANN Bylaws Section 25 and Annex D to the Bylaws. Greg On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 12:29 AM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> wrote:
Hello Phil,
Thanks and there is this section "...which requires community agreement to modify.."
So I think we are in order. No?
Regards Sent from my LG G4 Kindly excuse brevity and typos
On 10 Jan 2017 1:08 a.m., "Phil Corwin" <psc@vlaw-dc.com> wrote:
Of significant relevance to this subgroup and our ongoing discussion, I note that a letter formally terminating the Affirmation of Commitments between ICANN and the United States has been posted at https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/strickl ing-to-crocker-06jan17-en.pdf
From the first page of the letter signed by ICANN Board Chairman Steve Crocker on January 3, 2017:
*ICANN’s commitment to remain* a not-for-profit corporation, *headquartered in the United States of America* with offices around the world is embedded in ICANN’s Articles of Incorporation, which requires community agreement to modify, and in the Bylaws, which *specify that ICANN’s California office is its principal place of business*. (Emphasis added)
*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:* Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com] *Sent:* Monday, January 09, 2017 6:52 PM *To:* MSSI Secretariat *Cc:* Paul Rosenzweig; Phil Corwin; Mueller, Milton L; ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Jurisdiction Questionnaire: RESPONSE REQUESTED
Seeing some support for David McAuley's suggestion for Question 4 and some support for Alternative 1, I wonder if a combination of the two might be able to gain consensus support. Below (and attached in redline) is my suggested combination:
Are you aware of any material, documented instance(s) where ICANN has been unable to pursue the actual operation of its policies and accountability mechanisms because of ICANN’s jurisdiction? If so, please provide documentation, including specific examples and references to specific laws.
Are you aware of and able to document the existence of an alternative jurisdiction where ICANN would not be so prevented from pursuing the actual operation of ICANN’s policies and accountability mechanisms? If so, please provide documentation, including specific examples, references to specific laws, case studies, other studies, and analysis.
I look forward to discussion of this and the other alternatives regarding Question 4 on our call tomorrow, and before that, on this list.
Greg
On Mon, Jan 9, 2017 at 3:52 PM, MSSI Secretariat < mssi-secretariat@icann.org> wrote:
Hello all,
In reply to Paul Rosenzweig, the Jurisdiction meeting on Tuesday, 10 January is at 13:00 UTC.
With kind regards,
*Brenda Brewer, Projects & Operations Assistant *
Multistakeholder Strategy & Strategic Initiatives (MSSI)
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
*From: *<ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> *Date: *Monday, January 9, 2017 at 2:46 PM *To: *'Phil Corwin' <psc@vlaw-dc.com>, "'Mueller, Milton L'" < milton@gatech.edu> *Cc: *"ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org" <ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> *Subject: *Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Jurisdiction Questionnaire: RESPONSE REQUESTED
What time is the call tomorrow? I apologize, but I lost track of our scheduling decisions.
Paul
Paul Rosenzweig
paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com
O: +1 (202) 547-0660 <(202)%20547-0660>
M: +1 (202) 329-9650 <(202)%20329-9650>
VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 <(202)%20738-1739>
www.redbranchconsulting.com[redbranchconsulting.com] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.redbranchconsulting....>
My PGP Key: https://keys.mailvelope.com/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x9A830 097CA066684[keys.mailvelope.com] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__keys.mailvelope.com_pks...>
*From:* Phil Corwin [mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com] *Sent:* Monday, January 9, 2017 3:16 PM *To:* Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com>; 'Mueller, Milton L' <milton@gatech.edu> *Cc:* ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org *Subject:* RE: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Jurisdiction Questionnaire: RESPONSE REQUESTED
Whatever the WG’s decision, I certainly hope we can decide this with finality on tomorrow’s call. Because right now we are like a car spinning its tires and just sinking deeper into the mud. We have already spent far too much time on this questionnaire matter.
*Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal*
*Virtualaw LLC*
*1155 F Street, NW*
*Suite 1050*
*Washington, DC 20004*
*202-559-8597 <(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-bounc es@icann.org <ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Paul Rosenzweig *Sent:* Monday, January 09, 2017 3:02 PM *To:* 'Mueller, Milton L' *Cc:* ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Jurisdiction Questionnaire: RESPONSE REQUESTED
I gather, however, that some disagree and say “all now or none ever.” If that is my choice I choose none. If the idea of separation gains any traction, I’d be open to consideration but I fear it would not bet any better definition later and we would just be kicking the can down the road.
Paul
Paul Rosenzweig
paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com
O: +1 (202) 547-0660 <(202)%20547-0660>
M: +1 (202) 329-9650 <(202)%20329-9650>
VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 <(202)%20738-1739>
www.redbranchconsulting.com[redbranchconsulting.com] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.redbranchconsulting....>
My PGP Key: https://keys.mailvelope.com/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x9A830 097CA066684[keys.mailvelope.com] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__keys.mailvelope.com_pks...>
*From:* Mueller, Milton L [mailto:milton@gatech.edu <milton@gatech.edu>] *Sent:* Monday, January 9, 2017 2:28 PM *To:* Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> *Cc:* ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org *Subject:* RE: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Jurisdiction Questionnaire: RESPONSE REQUESTED
Paul
Others in the group feel strongly that question 4 should go out. Some feel so strongly that they are of the view that it is all or nothing. While I don’t agree with them and while I certainly don’t agree with the idea that saying “all or nothing” is respectful of other people, I am not going to try any longer to change their minds.
MM: Those who suggest that we should not send out a fact-finding missive at all because of Q4 also seem to be taking an “all or nothing approach” are they not?
The reasonable solution, as I have said before, is to separate Q4 from the others and work on it some more to make it take a form that is acceptable to a broader range of WG participants.
------------------------------
No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com[avg.com] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.avg.com_email-2Dsign...> Version: 2016.0.7996 / Virus Database: 4749/13706 - Release Date: 01/04/17
_______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
------------------------------
No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com/email-signature> Version: 2016.0.7996 / Virus Database: 4749/13706 - Release Date: 01/04/17
_______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
What I mean by "in order" is that the community is still discussing and hasn't decided yet. Ofcourse the Board has the ultimate approval rights but again such recommendation hasn't been made by the community and I have not yet seen why it should. Regards Sent from my LG G4 Kindly excuse brevity and typos On 10 Jan 2017 7:14 a.m., "Greg Shatan" <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote: Seun, I don't know what you mean by "in order." In any event, any change to the Articles of Incorporation requires the approval of the Empowered Community and the ICANN Board, pursuant to ICANN Bylaws Section 25 and Annex D to the Bylaws. Greg On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 12:29 AM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> wrote:
Hello Phil,
Thanks and there is this section "...which requires community agreement to modify.."
So I think we are in order. No?
Regards Sent from my LG G4 Kindly excuse brevity and typos
On 10 Jan 2017 1:08 a.m., "Phil Corwin" <psc@vlaw-dc.com> wrote:
Of significant relevance to this subgroup and our ongoing discussion, I note that a letter formally terminating the Affirmation of Commitments between ICANN and the United States has been posted at https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/strickl ing-to-crocker-06jan17-en.pdf
From the first page of the letter signed by ICANN Board Chairman Steve Crocker on January 3, 2017:
*ICANN’s commitment to remain* a not-for-profit corporation, *headquartered in the United States of America* with offices around the world is embedded in ICANN’s Articles of Incorporation, which requires community agreement to modify, and in the Bylaws, which *specify that ICANN’s California office is its principal place of business*. (Emphasis added)
*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:* Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com] *Sent:* Monday, January 09, 2017 6:52 PM *To:* MSSI Secretariat *Cc:* Paul Rosenzweig; Phil Corwin; Mueller, Milton L; ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Jurisdiction Questionnaire: RESPONSE REQUESTED
Seeing some support for David McAuley's suggestion for Question 4 and some support for Alternative 1, I wonder if a combination of the two might be able to gain consensus support. Below (and attached in redline) is my suggested combination:
Are you aware of any material, documented instance(s) where ICANN has been unable to pursue the actual operation of its policies and accountability mechanisms because of ICANN’s jurisdiction? If so, please provide documentation, including specific examples and references to specific laws.
Are you aware of and able to document the existence of an alternative jurisdiction where ICANN would not be so prevented from pursuing the actual operation of ICANN’s policies and accountability mechanisms? If so, please provide documentation, including specific examples, references to specific laws, case studies, other studies, and analysis.
I look forward to discussion of this and the other alternatives regarding Question 4 on our call tomorrow, and before that, on this list.
Greg
On Mon, Jan 9, 2017 at 3:52 PM, MSSI Secretariat < mssi-secretariat@icann.org> wrote:
Hello all,
In reply to Paul Rosenzweig, the Jurisdiction meeting on Tuesday, 10 January is at 13:00 UTC.
With kind regards,
*Brenda Brewer, Projects & Operations Assistant *
Multistakeholder Strategy & Strategic Initiatives (MSSI)
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
*From: *<ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> *Date: *Monday, January 9, 2017 at 2:46 PM *To: *'Phil Corwin' <psc@vlaw-dc.com>, "'Mueller, Milton L'" < milton@gatech.edu> *Cc: *"ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org" <ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> *Subject: *Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Jurisdiction Questionnaire: RESPONSE REQUESTED
What time is the call tomorrow? I apologize, but I lost track of our scheduling decisions.
Paul
Paul Rosenzweig
paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com
O: +1 (202) 547-0660 <(202)%20547-0660>
M: +1 (202) 329-9650 <(202)%20329-9650>
VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 <(202)%20738-1739>
www.redbranchconsulting.com[redbranchconsulting.com] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.redbranchconsulting....>
My PGP Key: https://keys.mailvelope.com/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x9A830 097CA066684[keys.mailvelope.com] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__keys.mailvelope.com_pks...>
*From:* Phil Corwin [mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com] *Sent:* Monday, January 9, 2017 3:16 PM *To:* Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com>; 'Mueller, Milton L' <milton@gatech.edu> *Cc:* ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org *Subject:* RE: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Jurisdiction Questionnaire: RESPONSE REQUESTED
Whatever the WG’s decision, I certainly hope we can decide this with finality on tomorrow’s call. Because right now we are like a car spinning its tires and just sinking deeper into the mud. We have already spent far too much time on this questionnaire matter.
*Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal*
*Virtualaw LLC*
*1155 F Street, NW*
*Suite 1050*
*Washington, DC 20004*
*202-559-8597 <(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-bounc es@icann.org <ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Paul Rosenzweig *Sent:* Monday, January 09, 2017 3:02 PM *To:* 'Mueller, Milton L' *Cc:* ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Jurisdiction Questionnaire: RESPONSE REQUESTED
I gather, however, that some disagree and say “all now or none ever.” If that is my choice I choose none. If the idea of separation gains any traction, I’d be open to consideration but I fear it would not bet any better definition later and we would just be kicking the can down the road.
Paul
Paul Rosenzweig
paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com
O: +1 (202) 547-0660 <(202)%20547-0660>
M: +1 (202) 329-9650 <(202)%20329-9650>
VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 <(202)%20738-1739>
www.redbranchconsulting.com[redbranchconsulting.com] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.redbranchconsulting....>
My PGP Key: https://keys.mailvelope.com/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x9A830 097CA066684[keys.mailvelope.com] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__keys.mailvelope.com_pks...>
*From:* Mueller, Milton L [mailto:milton@gatech.edu <milton@gatech.edu>] *Sent:* Monday, January 9, 2017 2:28 PM *To:* Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> *Cc:* ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org *Subject:* RE: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Jurisdiction Questionnaire: RESPONSE REQUESTED
Paul
Others in the group feel strongly that question 4 should go out. Some feel so strongly that they are of the view that it is all or nothing. While I don’t agree with them and while I certainly don’t agree with the idea that saying “all or nothing” is respectful of other people, I am not going to try any longer to change their minds.
MM: Those who suggest that we should not send out a fact-finding missive at all because of Q4 also seem to be taking an “all or nothing approach” are they not?
The reasonable solution, as I have said before, is to separate Q4 from the others and work on it some more to make it take a form that is acceptable to a broader range of WG participants.
------------------------------
No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com[avg.com] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.avg.com_email-2Dsign...> Version: 2016.0.7996 / Virus Database: 4749/13706 - Release Date: 01/04/17
_______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
------------------------------
No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com/email-signature> Version: 2016.0.7996 / Virus Database: 4749/13706 - Release Date: 01/04/17
_______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
NTIA's letter says “The successful completion of the IANA stewardship transition proves that the multistakeholder model can work. One of its strengths is that it /*provides opportunities for all interested parties to have a voice in decision making*/, not just those most directly involved or impacted by ICANN.” (Emphasis added) Are we here living up to that ideal? Much less give the outsiders a role in decision making, we are afraid to even receive information from them -- afraid of what the 'outsiders' may say, and what that may then lead to. This is not acceptable. This is an attempt to capture decision making. parminder On Tuesday 10 January 2017 05:38 AM, Phil Corwin wrote:
Of significant relevance to this subgroup and our ongoing discussion, I note that a letter formally terminating the Affirmation of Commitments between ICANN and the United States has been posted at https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/strickling-to-crocker-0...
From the first page of the letter signed by ICANN Board Chairman Steve Crocker on January 3, 2017:
*ICANN’s commitment to remain*a not-for-profit corporation, *headquartered in the United States of America* with offices around the world is embedded in ICANN’s Articles of Incorporation, which requires community agreement to modify, and in the Bylaws, which *specify that ICANN’s California office is its principal place of business*. (Emphasis added)
*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:*Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com] *Sent:* Monday, January 09, 2017 6:52 PM *To:* MSSI Secretariat *Cc:* Paul Rosenzweig; Phil Corwin; Mueller, Milton L; ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Jurisdiction Questionnaire: RESPONSE REQUESTED
Seeing some support for David McAuley's suggestion for Question 4 and some support for Alternative 1, I wonder if a combination of the two might be able to gain consensus support. Below (and attached in redline) is my suggested combination:
Are you aware of any material, documented instance(s) where ICANN has been unable to pursue the actual operation of its policies and accountability mechanisms because of ICANN’s jurisdiction? If so, please provide documentation, including specific examples and references to specific laws.
Are you aware of and able to document the existence of an alternative jurisdiction where ICANN would not be so prevented from pursuing the actual operation of ICANN’s policies and accountability mechanisms? If so, please provide documentation, including specific examples, references to specific laws, case studies, other studies, and analysis.
I look forward to discussion of this and the other alternatives regarding Question 4 on our call tomorrow, and before that, on this list.
Greg
On Mon, Jan 9, 2017 at 3:52 PM, MSSI Secretariat <mssi-secretariat@icann.org <mailto:mssi-secretariat@icann.org>> wrote:
Hello all,
In reply to Paul Rosenzweig, the Jurisdiction meeting on Tuesday, 10 January is at 13:00 UTC.
With kind regards,
/Brenda Brewer, Projects & Operations Assistant /
Multistakeholder Strategy & Strategic Initiatives (MSSI)
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
*From: *<ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com <mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com>> *Date: *Monday, January 9, 2017 at 2:46 PM *To: *'Phil Corwin' <psc@vlaw-dc.com <mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com>>, "'Mueller, Milton L'" <milton@gatech.edu <mailto:milton@gatech.edu>> *Cc: *"ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org>" <ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org>> *Subject: *Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Jurisdiction Questionnaire: RESPONSE REQUESTED
What time is the call tomorrow? I apologize, but I lost track of our scheduling decisions.
Paul
Paul Rosenzweig
paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com <mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com>
O: +1 (202) 547-0660 <tel:%28202%29%20547-0660>
M: +1 (202) 329-9650 <tel:%28202%29%20329-9650>
VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 <tel:%28202%29%20738-1739>
www.redbranchconsulting.com[redbranchconsulting.com] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.redbranchconsulting....>
My PGP Key: https://keys.mailvelope.com/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x9A830097CA066684[keys.mailvelope.com] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__keys.mailvelope.com_pks...>
*From:*Phil Corwin [mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com <mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com>] *Sent:* Monday, January 9, 2017 3:16 PM *To:* Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com <mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com>>; 'Mueller, Milton L' <milton@gatech.edu <mailto:milton@gatech.edu>> *Cc:* ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> *Subject:* RE: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Jurisdiction Questionnaire: RESPONSE REQUESTED
Whatever the WG’s decision, I certainly hope we can decide this with finality on tomorrow’s call. Because right now we are like a car spinning its tires and just sinking deeper into the mud. We have already spent far too much time on this questionnaire matter.
*Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal*
*Virtualaw LLC*
*1155 F Street, NW*
*Suite 1050*
*Washington, DC 20004*
*202-559-8597 <tel:%28202%29%20559-8597>/Direct*
*202-559-8750 <tel:%28202%29%20559-8750>/Fax*
*202-255-6172 <tel:%28202%29%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] *On Behalf Of *Paul Rosenzweig *Sent:* Monday, January 09, 2017 3:02 PM *To:* 'Mueller, Milton L' *Cc:* ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> *Subject:* Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Jurisdiction Questionnaire: RESPONSE REQUESTED
I gather, however, that some disagree and say “all now or none ever.” If that is my choice I choose none. If the idea of separation gains any traction, I’d be open to consideration but I fear it would not bet any better definition later and we would just be kicking the can down the road.
Paul
Paul Rosenzweig
paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com <mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com>
O: +1 (202) 547-0660 <tel:%28202%29%20547-0660>
M: +1 (202) 329-9650 <tel:%28202%29%20329-9650>
VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 <tel:%28202%29%20738-1739>
www.redbranchconsulting.com[redbranchconsulting.com] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.redbranchconsulting....>
My PGP Key: https://keys.mailvelope.com/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x9A830097CA066684[keys.mailvelope.com] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__keys.mailvelope.com_pks...>
*From:*Mueller, Milton L [mailto:milton@gatech.edu] *Sent:* Monday, January 9, 2017 2:28 PM *To:* Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com <mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com>> *Cc:* ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> *Subject:* RE: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Jurisdiction Questionnaire: RESPONSE REQUESTED
Paul
Others in the group feel strongly that question 4 should go out. Some feel so strongly that they are of the view that it is all or nothing. While I don’t agree with them and while I certainly don’t agree with the idea that saying “all or nothing” is respectful of other people, I am not going to try any longer to change their minds.
MM: Those who suggest that we should not send out a fact-finding missive at all because of Q4 also seem to be taking an “all or nothing approach” are they not?
The reasonable solution, as I have said before, is to separate Q4 from the others and work on it some more to make it take a form that is acceptable to a broader range of WG participants.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com[avg.com] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.avg.com_email-2Dsign...> Version: 2016.0.7996 / Virus Database: 4749/13706 - Release Date: 01/04/17
_______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org <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/email-signature> Version: 2016.0.7996 / Virus Database: 4749/13706 - Release Date: 01/04/17
_______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
I don't think this an "attempt to capture decision making" at all. "The opportunity for all interested parties to have a voice in decision making" is the opportunity to participate in the CCWG and this subgroup (and, generically, in Working Groups), and also to provide comments during Public Comment periods that are opened after reports and proposals are put out by Working Groups for public comment. There's no expectation that a questionnaire like this will be used in a Working Group. What we have proposed to do here is actually quite uncommon -- not a typical feature of the multistakeholder model as operationalized within ICANN. A mid-stream questionnaire such as the one we are discussing is not often conducted by a Working Group, based on my experience. When they are conducted, they are typically seeking facts not known to the Working Group (e.g., the accountability provisions of SO/ACs) and most often distributed to SO/ACs. This is an extra process that has been proposed, and it entirely within our discretion to send it out or not. Can you point to any statements made by participants in this group where they say they are "afraid" of anything? IF not, then there's no basis for saying so. We should avoid putting words in other people's mouths, and instead seek to understand their points of view. Best regards, Greg On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 12:50 AM, parminder <parminder@itforchange.net> wrote:
NTIA's letter says
“The successful completion of the IANA stewardship transition proves that the multistakeholder model can work. One of its strengths is that it *provides opportunities for all interested parties to have a voice in decision making*, not just those most directly involved or impacted by ICANN.” (Emphasis added)
Are we here living up to that ideal?
Much less give the outsiders a role in decision making, we are afraid to even receive information from them -- afraid of what the 'outsiders' may say, and what that may then lead to. This is not acceptable. This is an attempt to capture decision making.
parminder
On Tuesday 10 January 2017 05:38 AM, Phil Corwin wrote:
Of significant relevance to this subgroup and our ongoing discussion, I note that a letter formally terminating the Affirmation of Commitments between ICANN and the United States has been posted at https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/ strickling-to-crocker-06jan17-en.pdf
From the first page of the letter signed by ICANN Board Chairman Steve Crocker on January 3, 2017:
*ICANN’s commitment to remain* a not-for-profit corporation, *headquartered in the United States of America* with offices around the world is embedded in ICANN’s Articles of Incorporation, which requires community agreement to modify, and in the Bylaws, which *specify that ICANN’s California office is its principal place of business*. (Emphasis added)
*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:* Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com <gregshatanipc@gmail.com>] *Sent:* Monday, January 09, 2017 6:52 PM *To:* MSSI Secretariat *Cc:* Paul Rosenzweig; Phil Corwin; Mueller, Milton L; ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Jurisdiction Questionnaire: RESPONSE REQUESTED
Seeing some support for David McAuley's suggestion for Question 4 and some support for Alternative 1, I wonder if a combination of the two might be able to gain consensus support. Below (and attached in redline) is my suggested combination:
Are you aware of any material, documented instance(s) where ICANN has been unable to pursue the actual operation of its policies and accountability mechanisms because of ICANN’s jurisdiction? If so, please provide documentation, including specific examples and references to specific laws.
Are you aware of and able to document the existence of an alternative jurisdiction where ICANN would not be so prevented from pursuing the actual operation of ICANN’s policies and accountability mechanisms? If so, please provide documentation, including specific examples, references to specific laws, case studies, other studies, and analysis.
I look forward to discussion of this and the other alternatives regarding Question 4 on our call tomorrow, and before that, on this list.
Greg
On Mon, Jan 9, 2017 at 3:52 PM, MSSI Secretariat < mssi-secretariat@icann.org> wrote:
Hello all,
In reply to Paul Rosenzweig, the Jurisdiction meeting on Tuesday, 10 January is at 13:00 UTC.
With kind regards,
*Brenda Brewer, Projects & Operations Assistant *
Multistakeholder Strategy & Strategic Initiatives (MSSI)
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
*From: *< <ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org>ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@ icann.org> on behalf of Paul Rosenzweig < <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com>paul.rosenzweig@ redbranchconsulting.com> *Date: *Monday, January 9, 2017 at 2:46 PM *To: *'Phil Corwin' < <psc@vlaw-dc.com>psc@vlaw-dc.com>, "'Mueller, Milton L'" < <milton@gatech.edu>milton@gatech.edu> *Cc: *"ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org" <ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> *Subject: *Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Jurisdiction Questionnaire: RESPONSE REQUESTED
What time is the call tomorrow? I apologize, but I lost track of our scheduling decisions.
Paul
Paul Rosenzweig
<paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com>paul.rosenzweig@ redbranchconsulting.com
O: +1 (202) 547-0660 <%28202%29%20547-0660>
M: +1 (202) 329-9650 <%28202%29%20329-9650>
VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 <%28202%29%20738-1739>
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.redbranchconsulting....> www.redbranchconsulting.com[redbranchconsulting.com]
My PGP Key: https://keys.mailvelope.com/pks/lookup?op=get&search= 0x9A830097CA066684[keys.mailvelope.com] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__keys.mailvelope.com_pks...>
*From:* Phil Corwin [mailto: <psc@vlaw-dc.com>psc@vlaw-dc.com] *Sent:* Monday, January 9, 2017 3:16 PM *To:* Paul Rosenzweig < <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com>; 'Mueller, Milton L' < <milton@gatech.edu>milton@gatech.edu> *Cc:* ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org *Subject:* RE: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Jurisdiction Questionnaire: RESPONSE REQUESTED
Whatever the WG’s decision, I certainly hope we can decide this with finality on tomorrow’s call. Because right now we are like a car spinning its tires and just sinking deeper into the mud. We have already spent far too much time on this questionnaire matter.
*Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal*
*Virtualaw LLC*
*1155 F Street, NW*
*Suite 1050*
*Washington, DC 20004*
*202-559-8597 <%28202%29%20559-8597>/Direct*
*202-559-8750 <%28202%29%20559-8750>/Fax*
*202-255-6172 <%28202%29%20255-6172>/Cell*
*Twitter: @VlawDC*
*"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey*
*From:* ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction- bounces@icann.org <ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Paul Rosenzweig *Sent:* Monday, January 09, 2017 3:02 PM *To:* 'Mueller, Milton L' *Cc:* ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Jurisdiction Questionnaire: RESPONSE REQUESTED
I gather, however, that some disagree and say “all now or none ever.” If that is my choice I choose none. If the idea of separation gains any traction, I’d be open to consideration but I fear it would not bet any better definition later and we would just be kicking the can down the road.
Paul
Paul Rosenzweig
<paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com>paul.rosenzweig@ redbranchconsulting.com
O: +1 (202) 547-0660 <%28202%29%20547-0660>
M: +1 (202) 329-9650 <%28202%29%20329-9650>
VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 <%28202%29%20738-1739>
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.redbranchconsulting....> www.redbranchconsulting.com[redbranchconsulting.com]
My PGP Key: https://keys.mailvelope.com/pks/lookup?op=get&search= 0x9A830097CA066684[keys.mailvelope.com] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__keys.mailvelope.com_pks...>
*From:* Mueller, Milton L [mailto:milton@gatech.edu <milton@gatech.edu>] *Sent:* Monday, January 9, 2017 2:28 PM *To:* Paul Rosenzweig < <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> *Cc:* ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org *Subject:* RE: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Jurisdiction Questionnaire: RESPONSE REQUESTED
Paul
Others in the group feel strongly that question 4 should go out. Some feel so strongly that they are of the view that it is all or nothing. While I don’t agree with them and while I certainly don’t agree with the idea that saying “all or nothing” is respectful of other people, I am not going to try any longer to change their minds.
MM: Those who suggest that we should not send out a fact-finding missive at all because of Q4 also seem to be taking an “all or nothing approach” are they not?
The reasonable solution, as I have said before, is to separate Q4 from the others and work on it some more to make it take a form that is acceptable to a broader range of WG participants.
------------------------------
No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com[avg.com] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.avg.com_email-2Dsign...> Version: 2016.0.7996 / Virus Database: 4749/13706 - Release Date: 01/04/17
_______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
------------------------------
No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com/email-signature> Version: 2016.0.7996 / Virus Database: 4749/13706 - Release Date: 01/04/17
_______________________________________________ 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
Greg, pl see below. On Tuesday 10 January 2017 11:42 AM, Greg Shatan wrote:
I don't think this an "attempt to capture decision making" at all.
"The opportunity for all interested parties to have a voice in decision making" is the opportunity to participate in the CCWG and this subgroup (and, generically, in Working Groups), and also to provide comments during Public Comment periods that are opened after reports and proposals are put out by Working Groups for public comment.
I just responded to John on this point.
There's no expectation that a questionnaire like this will be used in a Working Group. What we have proposed to do here is actually quite uncommon -- not a typical feature of the multistakeholder model as operationalized within ICANN. A mid-stream questionnaire such as the one we are discussing is not often conducted by a Working Group, based on my experience. When they are conducted, they are typically seeking facts not known to the Working Group (e.g., the accountability provisions of SO/ACs) and most often distributed to SO/ACs. This is an extra process that has been proposed, and it entirely within our discretion to send it out or not.
Can you point to any statements made by participants in this group where they say they are "afraid" of anything? IF not, then there's no basis for saying so. We should avoid putting words in other people's mouths, and instead seek to understand their points of view.
In the last call, a participant spoke about fear about "orchestrated campaign", capture and manipulation, of a public consultation process. (Kavouss objected to this.). I have read people hee say, we are going into uncharted territories, digging a big hole for ourselves, etc etc in sending out Q 4 ... Is this not being "afraid" of a simple informational process?. So, indeed, I am putting no words in any one's mouth, this is what has been amply spoken over here. Best regards, parminder
Best regards,
Greg
On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 12:50 AM, parminder <parminder@itforchange.net <mailto:parminder@itforchange.net>> wrote:
NTIA's letter says
“The successful completion of the IANA stewardship transition proves that the multistakeholder model can work. One of its strengths is that it /*provides opportunities for all interested parties to have a voice in decision making*/, not just those most directly involved or impacted by ICANN.” (Emphasis added)
Are we here living up to that ideal?
Much less give the outsiders a role in decision making, we are afraid to even receive information from them -- afraid of what the 'outsiders' may say, and what that may then lead to. This is not acceptable. This is an attempt to capture decision making.
parminder
On Tuesday 10 January 2017 05:38 AM, Phil Corwin wrote:
Of significant relevance to this subgroup and our ongoing discussion, I note that a letter formally terminating the Affirmation of Commitments between ICANN and the United States has been posted at https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/strickling-to-crocker-0... <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/strickling-to-crocker-0...>
From the first page of the letter signed by ICANN Board Chairman Steve Crocker on January 3, 2017:
*ICANN’s commitment to remain*a not-for-profit corporation, *headquartered in the United States of America* with offices around the world is embedded in ICANN’s Articles of Incorporation, which requires community agreement to modify, and in the Bylaws, which *specify that ICANN’s California office is its principal place of business*. (Emphasis added)
*Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal*
*Virtualaw LLC*
*1155 F Street, NW*
*Suite 1050*
*Washington, DC 20004*
*202-559-8597 <tel:%28202%29%20559-8597>/Direct*
*202-559-8750 <tel:%28202%29%20559-8750>/Fax*
*202-255-6172 <tel:%28202%29%20255-6172>/Cell***
* *
*Twitter: @VlawDC*
*/"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey/*
*From:*Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>] *Sent:* Monday, January 09, 2017 6:52 PM *To:* MSSI Secretariat *Cc:* Paul Rosenzweig; Phil Corwin; Mueller, Milton L; ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> *Subject:* Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Jurisdiction Questionnaire: RESPONSE REQUESTED
Seeing some support for David McAuley's suggestion for Question 4 and some support for Alternative 1, I wonder if a combination of the two might be able to gain consensus support. Below (and attached in redline) is my suggested combination:
Are you aware of any material, documented instance(s) where ICANN has been unable to pursue the actual operation of its policies and accountability mechanisms because of ICANN’s jurisdiction? If so, please provide documentation, including specific examples and references to specific laws.
Are you aware of and able to document the existence of an alternative jurisdiction where ICANN would not be so prevented from pursuing the actual operation of ICANN’s policies and accountability mechanisms? If so, please provide documentation, including specific examples, references to specific laws, case studies, other studies, and analysis.
I look forward to discussion of this and the other alternatives regarding Question 4 on our call tomorrow, and before that, on this list.
Greg
On Mon, Jan 9, 2017 at 3:52 PM, MSSI Secretariat <mssi-secretariat@icann.org <mailto:mssi-secretariat@icann.org>> wrote:
Hello all,
In reply to Paul Rosenzweig, the Jurisdiction meeting on Tuesday, 10 January is at 13:00 UTC.
With kind regards,
/Brenda Brewer, Projects & Operations Assistant /
Multistakeholder Strategy & Strategic Initiatives (MSSI)
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
*From: *<ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com <mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com>> *Date: *Monday, January 9, 2017 at 2:46 PM *To: *'Phil Corwin' <psc@vlaw-dc.com <mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com>>, "'Mueller, Milton L'" <milton@gatech.edu <mailto:milton@gatech.edu>> *Cc: *"ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org>" <ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org>> *Subject: *Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Jurisdiction Questionnaire: RESPONSE REQUESTED
What time is the call tomorrow? I apologize, but I lost track of our scheduling decisions.
Paul
Paul Rosenzweig
<mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com>paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com <mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com>
O: +1 (202) 547-0660 <tel:%28202%29%20547-0660>
M: +1 (202) 329-9650 <tel:%28202%29%20329-9650>
VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 <tel:%28202%29%20738-1739>
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.redbranchconsulting.com_&d=DgMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=kbiQDH54980u4nTPfwdloDLY6-6F24x0ArAvhdeDvvc&m=nfCiwapWoYHvCLBz3QwPV-Y_rEkBKbBcjkF01YjHIU4&s=k0gxVhVajSVr85ScjQlhuuWFLH86Ai4JS2TRqYqcYdE&e=>www.redbranchconsulting.com <http://www.redbranchconsulting.com>[redbranchconsulting.com <http://redbranchconsulting.com>]
My PGP Key: https://keys.mailvelope.com/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x9A830097CA066684[keys.mailvelope.com] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__keys.mailvelope.com_pks...>
*From:*Phil Corwin [mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com <mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com>] *Sent:* Monday, January 9, 2017 3:16 PM *To:* Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com <mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com>>; 'Mueller, Milton L' <milton@gatech.edu <mailto:milton@gatech.edu>> *Cc:* ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> *Subject:* RE: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Jurisdiction Questionnaire: RESPONSE REQUESTED
Whatever the WG’s decision, I certainly hope we can decide this with finality on tomorrow’s call. Because right now we are like a car spinning its tires and just sinking deeper into the mud. We have already spent far too much time on this questionnaire matter.
*Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal*
*Virtualaw LLC*
*1155 F Street, NW*
*Suite 1050*
*Washington, DC 20004*
*202-559-8597 <tel:%28202%29%20559-8597>/Direct*
*202-559-8750 <tel:%28202%29%20559-8750>/Fax*
*202-255-6172 <tel:%28202%29%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 *Paul Rosenzweig *Sent:* Monday, January 09, 2017 3:02 PM *To:* 'Mueller, Milton L' *Cc:* ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> *Subject:* Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Jurisdiction Questionnaire: RESPONSE REQUESTED
I gather, however, that some disagree and say “all now or none ever.” If that is my choice I choose none. If the idea of separation gains any traction, I’d be open to consideration but I fear it would not bet any better definition later and we would just be kicking the can down the road.
Paul
Paul Rosenzweig
<mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com>paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com <mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com>
O: +1 (202) 547-0660 <tel:%28202%29%20547-0660>
M: +1 (202) 329-9650 <tel:%28202%29%20329-9650>
VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 <tel:%28202%29%20738-1739>
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.redbranchconsulting.com_&d=DgMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=kbiQDH54980u4nTPfwdloDLY6-6F24x0ArAvhdeDvvc&m=nfCiwapWoYHvCLBz3QwPV-Y_rEkBKbBcjkF01YjHIU4&s=k0gxVhVajSVr85ScjQlhuuWFLH86Ai4JS2TRqYqcYdE&e=>www.redbranchconsulting.com <http://www.redbranchconsulting.com>[redbranchconsulting.com <http://redbranchconsulting.com>]
My PGP Key: https://keys.mailvelope.com/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x9A830097CA066684[keys.mailvelope.com] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__keys.mailvelope.com_pks...>
*From:*Mueller, Milton L [mailto:milton@gatech.edu] *Sent:* Monday, January 9, 2017 2:28 PM *To:* Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com <mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com>> *Cc:* ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> *Subject:* RE: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Jurisdiction Questionnaire: RESPONSE REQUESTED
Paul
Others in the group feel strongly that question 4 should go out. Some feel so strongly that they are of the view that it is all or nothing. While I don’t agree with them and while I certainly don’t agree with the idea that saying “all or nothing” is respectful of other people, I am not going to try any longer to change their minds.
MM: Those who suggest that we should not send out a fact-finding missive at all because of Q4 also seem to be taking an “all or nothing approach” are they not?
The reasonable solution, as I have said before, is to separate Q4 from the others and work on it some more to make it take a form that is acceptable to a broader range of WG participants.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com[avg.com] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.avg.com_email-2Dsign...> Version: 2016.0.7996 / Virus Database: 4749/13706 - Release Date: 01/04/17
_______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org <mailto:Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com/email-signature> Version: 2016.0.7996 / Virus Database: 4749/13706 - Release Date: 01/04/17
_______________________________________________ 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>
participants (4)
-
Greg Shatan -
parminder -
Phil Corwin -
Seun Ojedeji