Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Question Presented (Greg Shatan)
Dear Greg, Dear All, It was not, The question is biased giving a prédétermine judgement I do not agree with this question. Regards Kavouss 2017-06-08 22:48 GMT+02:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>:
Dear All, It was not, The question is biased giving a prédétermine judgement I do not agree with this question. Regards Kavouss
2017-06-08 20:21 GMT+02:00 Thiago Braz Jardim Oliveira < thiago.jardim@itamaraty.gov.br>:
Greg,
Help me with this. Was this question you wanted to discuss at today's call presented to the group earlier than today or before today's call?
Thanks,
Thiago
-----Mensagem original----- De: ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounc es@icann.org] Em nome de ws2-jurisdiction-request@icann.org Enviada em: quinta-feira, 8 de junho de 2017 10:29 Para: ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org Assunto: Ws2-jurisdiction Digest, Vol 12, Issue 18
Send Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list submissions to ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to ws2-jurisdiction-request@icann.org
You can reach the person managing the list at ws2-jurisdiction-owner@icann.org
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of Ws2-jurisdiction digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Question Presented (Greg Shatan)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1 Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2017 09:28:50 -0400 From: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> To: ws2-jurisdiction <ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> Cc: "acct-staff@icann.org" <acct-staff@icann.org> Subject: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Question Presented Message-ID: <CA+aOHUTdY0AROjojE9MXcbkL7FJ9Asgv0QvFJAN4TJmR6sT71g@mail. gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Please see attached.
Thiago, this slide was prepared prior to the call as a strawman to assist with the discussion. As a result of the call, we now have a number of suggestions for changes or alternatives to the question, so we have moved beyond the strawman. Of course, as you have noted, some version of this question has been discussed by the Subgroup before. Kavouss, since we have moved beyond this formulation of the question, I'm not sure it's necessary to address whether the strawman question is biased or leads to a predetermined judgment (on the latter, since there are at least two opposing answers, I don't see how that can be the case). However, if you have any observations you would like to share that would be helpful in revising the question or preparing an alternative to it, please do share your thoughts. Thank you. Greg On Thu, Jun 8, 2017 at 5:08 PM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Greg, Dear All, It was not, The question is biased giving a prédétermine judgement I do not agree with this question. Regards Kavouss
2017-06-08 22:48 GMT+02:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>:
Dear All, It was not, The question is biased giving a prédétermine judgement I do not agree with this question. Regards Kavouss
2017-06-08 20:21 GMT+02:00 Thiago Braz Jardim Oliveira < thiago.jardim@itamaraty.gov.br>:
Greg,
Help me with this. Was this question you wanted to discuss at today's call presented to the group earlier than today or before today's call?
Thanks,
Thiago
-----Mensagem original----- De: ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounc es@icann.org] Em nome de ws2-jurisdiction-request@icann.org Enviada em: quinta-feira, 8 de junho de 2017 10:29 Para: ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org Assunto: Ws2-jurisdiction Digest, Vol 12, Issue 18
Send Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list submissions to ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to ws2-jurisdiction-request@icann.org
You can reach the person managing the list at ws2-jurisdiction-owner@icann.org
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of Ws2-jurisdiction digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Question Presented (Greg Shatan)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1 Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2017 09:28:50 -0400 From: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> To: ws2-jurisdiction <ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> Cc: "acct-staff@icann.org" <acct-staff@icann.org> Subject: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Question Presented Message-ID: <CA+aOHUTdY0AROjojE9MXcbkL7FJ9Asgv0QvFJAN4TJmR6sT71g@mail.gm ail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Please see attached.
Dear Greg, It would have been best if you could have sent your question to the group prior to the call, and not only as the call was happening. People who were not present, and only saw the proposal in their mailing list afterwards, might perhaps be misled into thinking that the question you drafted came from the group, or that it reflected some degree of consensus within the group. May I highlight, in that context, that you disregarded the suggestion to submit Jorge's proposal to the group for consideration. His proposal, which I and others seconded, was to have the group discuss the mandate in respect of concrete cases, and not develop an ex-ante position in abstract. As to the question itself, my first observation is that we are not supposed to ask anything like this now. As reflected in our revised work plan of 24 April 2017, it was agreed that "the Subgroup will identify issues before it goes on to explore remedies"; "for each issue, the group will then look at proposed remedies"; "the group should not discuss a remedy until an issue has been identified that requires discussion of that remedy". The question you drafted goes in the opposite direction, as it concerns one imaginable remedy (change to ICANN's status or location), prior to having identified what are the issues to be discussed by the group. My second remark is that your proposal makes a couple of assumptions that are not accurate nor necessary. For example, in the first bullet point, you assume that no form of immunity from domestic jurisdiction is possible for ICANN in case it remains an organisation incorporated in California. This is not true, as immunity arrangements are possible under different forms. Take the ICRC, which has domestic and international law immunities, even though it remains a private organisation governed by Swiss law. My third remark is about the logical chain in the third bullet point. There is this suggestion that if we can't reach consensus on the mandate, then we would need to refer the question you drafted to the Plenary. Well, if there is no consensus on the mandate, then we should simply refer the mandate itself to the Plenary, not any question pre-empting hypothetical outcomes which could, by the way, only be reached in case the group engages in substantive discussions on the issues identified by the group and on the correspondent possible remedies.. Best regards, Thiago -----Mensagem original----- De: Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com] Enviada em: sexta-feira, 9 de junho de 2017 01:47 Para: Kavouss Arasteh Cc: Thiago Braz Jardim Oliveira; ws2-jurisdiction Assunto: Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Question Presented (Greg Shatan) Thiago, this slide was prepared prior to the call as a strawman to assist with the discussion. As a result of the call, we now have a number of suggestions for changes or alternatives to the question, so we have moved beyond the strawman. Of course, as you have noted, some version of this question has been discussed by the Subgroup before. Kavouss, since we have moved beyond this formulation of the question, I'm not sure it's necessary to address whether the strawman question is biased or leads to a predetermined judgment (on the latter, since there are at least two opposing answers, I don't see how that can be the case). However, if you have any observations you would like to share that would be helpful in revising the question or preparing an alternative to it, please do share your thoughts. Thank you. Greg On Thu, Jun 8, 2017 at 5:08 PM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote: Dear Greg, Dear All, It was not, The question is biased giving a prédétermine judgement I do not agree with this question. Regards Kavouss 2017-06-08 22:48 GMT+02:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>: Dear All, It was not, The question is biased giving a prédétermine judgement I do not agree with this question. Regards Kavouss 2017-06-08 20:21 GMT+02:00 Thiago Braz Jardim Oliveira <thiago.jardim@itamaraty.gov.br <mailto:thiago.jardim@itamaraty.gov.br> >: Greg, Help me with this. Was this question you wanted to discuss at today's call presented to the group earlier than today or before today's call? Thanks, Thiago -----Mensagem original----- De: ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org> ] Em nome de ws2-jurisdiction-request@icann.org <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-request@icann.org> Enviada em: quinta-feira, 8 de junho de 2017 10:29 Para: ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org Assunto: Ws2-jurisdiction Digest, Vol 12, Issue 18 Send Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list submissions to ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to ws2-jurisdiction-request@icann.org <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-request@icann.org> You can reach the person managing the list at ws2-jurisdiction-owner@icann.org <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-owner@icann.org> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of Ws2-jurisdiction digest..." Today's Topics: 1. Question Presented (Greg Shatan) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2017 09:28:50 -0400 From: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> To: ws2-jurisdiction <ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> Cc: "acct-staff@icann.org" <acct-staff@icann.org> Subject: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Question Presented Message-ID: <CA+aOHUTdY0AROjojE9MXcbkL7FJ9Asgv0QvFJAN4TJmR6sT71g@mail.gmail.com <mailto:CA%2BaOHUTdY0AROjojE9MXcbkL7FJ9Asgv0QvFJAN4TJmR6sT71g@mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Please see attached.
All very valuable and good points! @Greg: could you please elaborate on why you disregarded my proposal? I expressly apologized for not being able to attend the meeting, but also made a specific proposal (consistent with prior discussions and agreements in the Group, as Thiago mentions) which I asked to be considered. best regards Jorge ________________________________ Von: Thiago Braz Jardim Oliveira <thiago.jardim@itamaraty.gov.br> Datum: 10. Juni 2017 um 00:47:34 MESZ An: ws2-jurisdiction <ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> Betreff: [Ws2-jurisdiction] RES: Question Presented (Greg Shatan) Dear Greg, It would have been best if you could have sent your question to the group prior to the call, and not only as the call was happening. People who were not present, and only saw the proposal in their mailing list afterwards, might perhaps be misled into thinking that the question you drafted came from the group, or that it reflected some degree of consensus within the group. May I highlight, in that context, that you disregarded the suggestion to submit Jorge's proposal to the group for consideration. His proposal, which I and others seconded, was to have the group discuss the mandate in respect of concrete cases, and not develop an ex-ante position in abstract. As to the question itself, my first observation is that we are not supposed to ask anything like this now. As reflected in our revised work plan of 24 April 2017, it was agreed that "the Subgroup will identify issues before it goes on to explore remedies"; "for each issue, the group will then look at proposed remedies"; "the group should not discuss a remedy until an issue has been identified that requires discussion of that remedy". The question you drafted goes in the opposite direction, as it concerns one imaginable remedy (change to ICANN's status or location), prior to having identified what are the issues to be discussed by the group. My second remark is that your proposal makes a couple of assumptions that are not accurate nor necessary. For example, in the first bullet point, you assume that no form of immunity from domestic jurisdiction is possible for ICANN in case it remains an organisation incorporated in California. This is not true, as immunity arrangements are possible under different forms. Take the ICRC, which has domestic and international law immunities, even though it remains a private organisation governed by Swiss law. My third remark is about the logical chain in the third bullet point. There is this suggestion that if we can't reach consensus on the mandate, then we would need to refer the question you drafted to the Plenary. Well, if there is no consensus on the mandate, then we should simply refer the mandate itself to the Plenary, not any question pre-empting hypothetical outcomes which could, by the way, only be reached in case the group engages in substantive discussions on the issues identified by the group and on the correspondent possible remedies.. Best regards, Thiago -----Mensagem original----- De: Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com] Enviada em: sexta-feira, 9 de junho de 2017 01:47 Para: Kavouss Arasteh Cc: Thiago Braz Jardim Oliveira; ws2-jurisdiction Assunto: Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Question Presented (Greg Shatan) Thiago, this slide was prepared prior to the call as a strawman to assist with the discussion. As a result of the call, we now have a number of suggestions for changes or alternatives to the question, so we have moved beyond the strawman. Of course, as you have noted, some version of this question has been discussed by the Subgroup before. Kavouss, since we have moved beyond this formulation of the question, I'm not sure it's necessary to address whether the strawman question is biased or leads to a predetermined judgment (on the latter, since there are at least two opposing answers, I don't see how that can be the case). However, if you have any observations you would like to share that would be helpful in revising the question or preparing an alternative to it, please do share your thoughts. Thank you. Greg On Thu, Jun 8, 2017 at 5:08 PM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote: Dear Greg, Dear All, It was not, The question is biased giving a prédétermine judgement I do not agree with this question. Regards Kavouss 2017-06-08 22:48 GMT+02:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>: Dear All, It was not, The question is biased giving a prédétermine judgement I do not agree with this question. Regards Kavouss 2017-06-08 20:21 GMT+02:00 Thiago Braz Jardim Oliveira <thiago.jardim@itamaraty.gov.br <mailto:thiago.jardim@itamaraty.gov.br> >: Greg, Help me with this. Was this question you wanted to discuss at today's call presented to the group earlier than today or before today's call? Thanks, Thiago -----Mensagem original----- De: ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org> ] Em nome de ws2-jurisdiction-request@icann.org <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-request@icann.org> Enviada em: quinta-feira, 8 de junho de 2017 10:29 Para: ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org Assunto: Ws2-jurisdiction Digest, Vol 12, Issue 18 Send Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list submissions to ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to ws2-jurisdiction-request@icann.org <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-request@icann.org> You can reach the person managing the list at ws2-jurisdiction-owner@icann.org <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-owner@icann.org> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of Ws2-jurisdiction digest..." Today's Topics: 1. Question Presented (Greg Shatan) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2017 09:28:50 -0400 From: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> To: ws2-jurisdiction <ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> Cc: "acct-staff@icann.org" <acct-staff@icann.org> Subject: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Question Presented Message-ID: <CA+aOHUTdY0AROjojE9MXcbkL7FJ9Asgv0QvFJAN4TJmR6sT71g@mail.gmail.com <mailto:CA%2BaOHUTdY0AROjojE9MXcbkL7FJ9Asgv0QvFJAN4TJmR6sT71g@mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Please see attached.
Jorge, I'm sorry that you feel your contribution was disregarded during the most recent call. It was not intentional, nor do I feel that such characterization is really accurate. Your June 5 email only said "please note my position," which I did not read as a request for me to raise it as a proposal for consideration during the call. We'll have to improve our communication! I did respond on June 7 to you and others by email, confirming that this discussion was part of our Work Plan. I see now in reviewing this email thread ex post facto that Thiago referred to your contribution as a "specific proposal" in an email later that day, but I guess I did not put these thoughts together into a request. (Thiago mentioned it again in an email just before the call, but sadly I didn't see that one until after the call.) In any event, your proposal was brought up during the call in the chat by Thiago, which I then noted, but it was not taken up by anyone else on the call. There was a response in the chat by one participant that he did not know what the proposal meant; the answer was only that other people do, which unfortunately did not stimulate much in the way of further conversation. As I'm sure you have seen, your contribution was featured in the document that I circulated yesterday, since it had been raised on the call by Thiago. It was also raised on our email list by Thiago as well as yourself, more than once. So it seems that your position has been broadly circulated and there has been ample opportunity for others to consider it. Best regards, Greg On Sat, Jun 10, 2017 at 3:10 AM, <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> wrote:
All very valuable and good points!
@Greg: could you please elaborate on why you disregarded my proposal? I expressly apologized for not being able to attend the meeting, but also made a specific proposal (consistent with prior discussions and agreements in the Group, as Thiago mentions) which I asked to be considered.
best regards
Jorge
________________________________
Von: Thiago Braz Jardim Oliveira <thiago.jardim@itamaraty.gov.br> Datum: 10. Juni 2017 um 00:47:34 MESZ An: ws2-jurisdiction <ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> Betreff: [Ws2-jurisdiction] RES: Question Presented (Greg Shatan)
Dear Greg,
It would have been best if you could have sent your question to the group prior to the call, and not only as the call was happening. People who were not present, and only saw the proposal in their mailing list afterwards, might perhaps be misled into thinking that the question you drafted came from the group, or that it reflected some degree of consensus within the group.
May I highlight, in that context, that you disregarded the suggestion to submit Jorge's proposal to the group for consideration. His proposal, which I and others seconded, was to have the group discuss the mandate in respect of concrete cases, and not develop an ex-ante position in abstract.
As to the question itself, my first observation is that we are not supposed to ask anything like this now. As reflected in our revised work plan of 24 April 2017, it was agreed that "the Subgroup will identify issues before it goes on to explore remedies"; "for each issue, the group will then look at proposed remedies"; "the group should not discuss a remedy until an issue has been identified that requires discussion of that remedy". The question you drafted goes in the opposite direction, as it concerns one imaginable remedy (change to ICANN's status or location), prior to having identified what are the issues to be discussed by the group.
My second remark is that your proposal makes a couple of assumptions that are not accurate nor necessary. For example, in the first bullet point, you assume that no form of immunity from domestic jurisdiction is possible for ICANN in case it remains an organisation incorporated in California. This is not true, as immunity arrangements are possible under different forms. Take the ICRC, which has domestic and international law immunities, even though it remains a private organisation governed by Swiss law.
My third remark is about the logical chain in the third bullet point. There is this suggestion that if we can't reach consensus on the mandate, then we would need to refer the question you drafted to the Plenary. Well, if there is no consensus on the mandate, then we should simply refer the mandate itself to the Plenary, not any question pre-empting hypothetical outcomes which could, by the way, only be reached in case the group engages in substantive discussions on the issues identified by the group and on the correspondent possible remedies..
Best regards,
Thiago
-----Mensagem original----- De: Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com] Enviada em: sexta-feira, 9 de junho de 2017 01:47 Para: Kavouss Arasteh Cc: Thiago Braz Jardim Oliveira; ws2-jurisdiction Assunto: Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Question Presented (Greg Shatan)
Thiago, this slide was prepared prior to the call as a strawman to assist with the discussion. As a result of the call, we now have a number of suggestions for changes or alternatives to the question, so we have moved beyond the strawman. Of course, as you have noted, some version of this question has been discussed by the Subgroup before.
Kavouss, since we have moved beyond this formulation of the question, I'm not sure it's necessary to address whether the strawman question is biased or leads to a predetermined judgment (on the latter, since there are at least two opposing answers, I don't see how that can be the case). However, if you have any observations you would like to share that would be helpful in revising the question or preparing an alternative to it, please do share your thoughts. Thank you.
Greg
On Thu, Jun 8, 2017 at 5:08 PM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Greg, Dear All, It was not, The question is biased giving a prédétermine judgement I do not agree with this question. Regards Kavouss
2017-06-08 22:48 GMT+02:00 Kavouss Arasteh < kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>:
Dear All, It was not, The question is biased giving a prédétermine judgement I do not agree with this question. Regards
Kavouss
2017-06-08 20:21 GMT+02:00 Thiago Braz Jardim Oliveira < thiago.jardim@itamaraty.gov.br <mailto:thiago.jardim@itamaraty.gov.br> >:
Greg,
Help me with this. Was this question you wanted to discuss at today's call presented to the group earlier than today or before today's call?
Thanks,
Thiago
-----Mensagem original----- De: ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org <mailto: ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounc es@icann.org <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org> ] Em nome de ws2-jurisdiction-request@icann.org <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-reque st@icann.org> Enviada em: quinta-feira, 8 de junho de 2017 10:29 Para: ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org Assunto: Ws2-jurisdiction Digest, Vol 12, Issue 18
Send Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list submissions to ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit https://mm.icann.org/mailman/l istinfo/ws2-jurisdiction <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/ listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to ws2-jurisdiction-request@icann.org <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-request@icann.org>
You can reach the person managing the list at ws2-jurisdiction-owner@icann.org <mailto: ws2-jurisdiction-owner@icann.org>
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of Ws2-jurisdiction digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Question Presented (Greg Shatan)
------------------------------ ----------------------------------------
Message: 1 Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2017 09:28:50 -0400 From: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> To: ws2-jurisdiction <ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> Cc: "acct-staff@icann.org" <acct-staff@icann.org> Subject: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Question Presented Message-ID: <CA+aOHUTdY0AROjojE9MXcbkL7FJ9 Asgv0QvFJAN4TJmR6sT71g@mail.gmail.com <mailto:CA%2BaOHUTdY0AROjojE9M XcbkL7FJ9Asgv0QvFJAN4TJmR6sT71g@mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Please see attached.
Dear Greg, thanks for kindly clarifying - I'll try to be more specific next time (as unfortunately other pressing obligations prevent me from attending many calls...) best regards Jorge ________________________________ Von: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> Datum: 12. Juni 2017 um 23:56:05 MESZ An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> Cc: Thiago Braz Jardim Oliveira <thiago.jardim@itamaraty.gov.br>, ws2-jurisdiction <ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> Betreff: Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] RES: Question Presented (Greg Shatan) Jorge, I'm sorry that you feel your contribution was disregarded during the most recent call. It was not intentional, nor do I feel that such characterization is really accurate. Your June 5 email only said "please note my position," which I did not read as a request for me to raise it as a proposal for consideration during the call. We'll have to improve our communication! I did respond on June 7 to you and others by email, confirming that this discussion was part of our Work Plan. I see now in reviewing this email thread ex post facto that Thiago referred to your contribution as a "specific proposal" in an email later that day, but I guess I did not put these thoughts together into a request. (Thiago mentioned it again in an email just before the call, but sadly I didn't see that one until after the call.) In any event, your proposal was brought up during the call in the chat by Thiago, which I then noted, but it was not taken up by anyone else on the call. There was a response in the chat by one participant that he did not know what the proposal meant; the answer was only that other people do, which unfortunately did not stimulate much in the way of further conversation. As I'm sure you have seen, your contribution was featured in the document that I circulated yesterday, since it had been raised on the call by Thiago. It was also raised on our email list by Thiago as well as yourself, more than once. So it seems that your position has been broadly circulated and there has been ample opportunity for others to consider it. Best regards, Greg On Sat, Jun 10, 2017 at 3:10 AM, <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>> wrote: All very valuable and good points! @Greg: could you please elaborate on why you disregarded my proposal? I expressly apologized for not being able to attend the meeting, but also made a specific proposal (consistent with prior discussions and agreements in the Group, as Thiago mentions) which I asked to be considered. best regards Jorge ________________________________ Von: Thiago Braz Jardim Oliveira <thiago.jardim@itamaraty.gov.br<mailto:thiago.jardim@itamaraty.gov.br>> Datum: 10. Juni 2017 um 00:47:34 MESZ An: ws2-jurisdiction <ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org<mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org>> Betreff: [Ws2-jurisdiction] RES: Question Presented (Greg Shatan) Dear Greg, It would have been best if you could have sent your question to the group prior to the call, and not only as the call was happening. People who were not present, and only saw the proposal in their mailing list afterwards, might perhaps be misled into thinking that the question you drafted came from the group, or that it reflected some degree of consensus within the group. May I highlight, in that context, that you disregarded the suggestion to submit Jorge's proposal to the group for consideration. His proposal, which I and others seconded, was to have the group discuss the mandate in respect of concrete cases, and not develop an ex-ante position in abstract. As to the question itself, my first observation is that we are not supposed to ask anything like this now. As reflected in our revised work plan of 24 April 2017, it was agreed that "the Subgroup will identify issues before it goes on to explore remedies"; "for each issue, the group will then look at proposed remedies"; "the group should not discuss a remedy until an issue has been identified that requires discussion of that remedy". The question you drafted goes in the opposite direction, as it concerns one imaginable remedy (change to ICANN's status or location), prior to having identified what are the issues to be discussed by the group. My second remark is that your proposal makes a couple of assumptions that are not accurate nor necessary. For example, in the first bullet point, you assume that no form of immunity from domestic jurisdiction is possible for ICANN in case it remains an organisation incorporated in California. This is not true, as immunity arrangements are possible under different forms. Take the ICRC, which has domestic and international law immunities, even though it remains a private organisation governed by Swiss law. My third remark is about the logical chain in the third bullet point. There is this suggestion that if we can't reach consensus on the mandate, then we would need to refer the question you drafted to the Plenary. Well, if there is no consensus on the mandate, then we should simply refer the mandate itself to the Plenary, not any question pre-empting hypothetical outcomes which could, by the way, only be reached in case the group engages in substantive discussions on the issues identified by the group and on the correspondent possible remedies.. Best regards, Thiago -----Mensagem original----- De: Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>] Enviada em: sexta-feira, 9 de junho de 2017 01:47 Para: Kavouss Arasteh Cc: Thiago Braz Jardim Oliveira; ws2-jurisdiction Assunto: Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Question Presented (Greg Shatan) Thiago, this slide was prepared prior to the call as a strawman to assist with the discussion. As a result of the call, we now have a number of suggestions for changes or alternatives to the question, so we have moved beyond the strawman. Of course, as you have noted, some version of this question has been discussed by the Subgroup before. Kavouss, since we have moved beyond this formulation of the question, I'm not sure it's necessary to address whether the strawman question is biased or leads to a predetermined judgment (on the latter, since there are at least two opposing answers, I don't see how that can be the case). However, if you have any observations you would like to share that would be helpful in revising the question or preparing an alternative to it, please do share your thoughts. Thank you. Greg On Thu, Jun 8, 2017 at 5:08 PM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> wrote: Dear Greg, Dear All, It was not, The question is biased giving a prédétermine judgement I do not agree with this question. Regards Kavouss 2017-06-08 22:48 GMT+02:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>>: Dear All, It was not, The question is biased giving a prédétermine judgement I do not agree with this question. Regards Kavouss 2017-06-08 20:21 GMT+02:00 Thiago Braz Jardim Oliveira <thiago.jardim@itamaraty.gov.br<mailto:thiago.jardim@itamaraty.gov.br> <mailto:thiago.jardim@itamaraty.gov.br<mailto:thiago.jardim@itamaraty.gov.br>> >: Greg, Help me with this. Was this question you wanted to discuss at today's call presented to the group earlier than today or before today's call? Thanks, Thiago -----Mensagem original----- De: ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org<mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org> <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org<mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org>> [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org<mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org> <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org<mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org>> ] Em nome de ws2-jurisdiction-request@icann.org<mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-request@icann.org> <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-request@icann.org<mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-request@icann.org>> Enviada em: quinta-feira, 8 de junho de 2017 10:29 Para: ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org<mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> Assunto: Ws2-jurisdiction Digest, Vol 12, Issue 18 Send Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list submissions to ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org<mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to ws2-jurisdiction-request@icann.org<mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-request@icann.org> <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-request@icann.org<mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-request@icann.org>> You can reach the person managing the list at ws2-jurisdiction-owner@icann.org<mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-owner@icann.org> <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-owner@icann.org<mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-owner@icann.org>> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of Ws2-jurisdiction digest..." Today's Topics: 1. Question Presented (Greg Shatan) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2017 09:28:50 -0400 From: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> To: ws2-jurisdiction <ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org<mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org>> Cc: "acct-staff@icann.org<mailto:acct-staff@icann.org>" <acct-staff@icann.org<mailto:acct-staff@icann.org>> Subject: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Question Presented Message-ID: <CA+aOHUTdY0AROjojE9MXcbkL7FJ9Asgv0QvFJAN4TJmR6sT71g@mail.gmail.com<mailto:CA%2BaOHUTdY0AROjojE9MXcbkL7FJ9Asgv0QvFJAN4TJmR6sT71g@mail.gmail.com> <mailto:CA%2BaOHUTdY0AROjojE9MXcbkL7FJ9Asgv0QvFJAN4TJmR6sT71g@mail.gmail.com<mailto:CA%252BaOHUTdY0AROjojE9MXcbkL7FJ9Asgv0QvFJAN4TJmR6sT71g@mail.gmail.com>> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Please see attached.
Greg There was an overwhelming consensus for your approach both on the call and in the subsequent discussions on the list where your ideas (or my somewhat modified version) garnered significant support. It is time, and past time, for this group to put this issue to bed. I can understand why those whose opinions have not carried the day would prefer to not resolve the issue, but if we cannot move forward at this juncture with a wide consensus in the group (albeit with minority objection from the representatives of several governments) then we should just close the group out altogether. Paul PS -- You do not need to elaborate on your handling of this contentious group, which has been quite patient. Paul Rosenzweig paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com O: +1 (202) 547-0660 M: +1 (202) 329-9650 VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 www.redbranchconsulting.com My PGP Key: https://keys.mailvelope.com/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x9A830097CA066684 -----Original Message----- From: ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Thiago Braz Jardim Oliveira Sent: Friday, June 9, 2017 6:47 PM To: ws2-jurisdiction <ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> Subject: [Ws2-jurisdiction] RES: Question Presented (Greg Shatan) Dear Greg, It would have been best if you could have sent your question to the group prior to the call, and not only as the call was happening. People who were not present, and only saw the proposal in their mailing list afterwards, might perhaps be misled into thinking that the question you drafted came from the group, or that it reflected some degree of consensus within the group. May I highlight, in that context, that you disregarded the suggestion to submit Jorge's proposal to the group for consideration. His proposal, which I and others seconded, was to have the group discuss the mandate in respect of concrete cases, and not develop an ex-ante position in abstract. As to the question itself, my first observation is that we are not supposed to ask anything like this now. As reflected in our revised work plan of 24 April 2017, it was agreed that "the Subgroup will identify issues before it goes on to explore remedies"; "for each issue, the group will then look at proposed remedies"; "the group should not discuss a remedy until an issue has been identified that requires discussion of that remedy". The question you drafted goes in the opposite direction, as it concerns one imaginable remedy (change to ICANN's status or location), prior to having identified what are the issues to be discussed by the group. My second remark is that your proposal makes a couple of assumptions that are not accurate nor necessary. For example, in the first bullet point, you assume that no form of immunity from domestic jurisdiction is possible for ICANN in case it remains an organisation incorporated in California. This is not true, as immunity arrangements are possible under different forms. Take the ICRC, which has domestic and international law immunities, even though it remains a private organisation governed by Swiss law. My third remark is about the logical chain in the third bullet point. There is this suggestion that if we can't reach consensus on the mandate, then we would need to refer the question you drafted to the Plenary. Well, if there is no consensus on the mandate, then we should simply refer the mandate itself to the Plenary, not any question pre-empting hypothetical outcomes which could, by the way, only be reached in case the group engages in substantive discussions on the issues identified by the group and on the correspondent possible remedies.. Best regards, Thiago -----Mensagem original----- De: Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com] Enviada em: sexta-feira, 9 de junho de 2017 01:47 Para: Kavouss Arasteh Cc: Thiago Braz Jardim Oliveira; ws2-jurisdiction Assunto: Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Question Presented (Greg Shatan) Thiago, this slide was prepared prior to the call as a strawman to assist with the discussion. As a result of the call, we now have a number of suggestions for changes or alternatives to the question, so we have moved beyond the strawman. Of course, as you have noted, some version of this question has been discussed by the Subgroup before. Kavouss, since we have moved beyond this formulation of the question, I'm not sure it's necessary to address whether the strawman question is biased or leads to a predetermined judgment (on the latter, since there are at least two opposing answers, I don't see how that can be the case). However, if you have any observations you would like to share that would be helpful in revising the question or preparing an alternative to it, please do share your thoughts. Thank you. Greg On Thu, Jun 8, 2017 at 5:08 PM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote: Dear Greg, Dear All, It was not, The question is biased giving a prédétermine judgement I do not agree with this question. Regards Kavouss 2017-06-08 22:48 GMT+02:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>: Dear All, It was not, The question is biased giving a prédétermine judgement I do not agree with this question. Regards Kavouss 2017-06-08 20:21 GMT+02:00 Thiago Braz Jardim Oliveira <thiago.jardim@itamaraty.gov.br <mailto:thiago.jardim@itamaraty.gov.br> >: Greg, Help me with this. Was this question you wanted to discuss at today's call presented to the group earlier than today or before today's call? Thanks, Thiago -----Mensagem original----- De: ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org> ] Em nome de ws2-jurisdiction-request@icann.org <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-request@icann.org> Enviada em: quinta-feira, 8 de junho de 2017 10:29 Para: ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org Assunto: Ws2-jurisdiction Digest, Vol 12, Issue 18 Send Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list submissions to ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to ws2-jurisdiction-request@icann.org <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-request@icann.org> You can reach the person managing the list at ws2-jurisdiction-owner@icann.org <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-owner@icann.org> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of Ws2-jurisdiction digest..." Today's Topics: 1. Question Presented (Greg Shatan) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2017 09:28:50 -0400 From: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> To: ws2-jurisdiction <ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> Cc: "acct-staff@icann.org" <acct-staff@icann.org> Subject: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Question Presented Message-ID: <CA+aOHUTdY0AROjojE9MXcbkL7FJ9Asgv0QvFJAN4TJmR6sT71g@mail.gmail.com <mailto:CA%2BaOHUTdY0AROjojE9MXcbkL7FJ9Asgv0QvFJAN4TJmR6sT71g@mail.gmail.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Please see attached.
Hi, My concern is that the minority may be large enough to deny group consensus. I am not sure there is overwhelming consensus, especially when you count those of us that are somewhere in the middle. Also in any form of ICANN or rough consensus, it is important that no minority feel its position has not been heard, understood and fully considered. Greg is appropriately trying to call consensus, and, I think also appropriately, those who feel they have not been heard, understood and considered feel we are not there yet. Reading the degree of misunderstanding there still seems to b eabout the various position of others, I tend to also agree we have not yet reached any sort of ICANN or rough consensus. avri On 10-Jun-17 11:34, Paul Rosenzweig wrote:
Greg
There was an overwhelming consensus for your approach both on the call and in the subsequent discussions on the list where your ideas (or my somewhat modified version) garnered significant support. It is time, and past time, for this group to put this issue to bed.
I can understand why those whose opinions have not carried the day would prefer to not resolve the issue, but if we cannot move forward at this juncture with a wide consensus in the group (albeit with minority objection from the representatives of several governments) then we should just close the group out altogether.
Paul
PS -- You do not need to elaborate on your handling of this contentious group, which has been quite patient.
Paul Rosenzweig paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com O: +1 (202) 547-0660 M: +1 (202) 329-9650 VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 www.redbranchconsulting.com My PGP Key: https://keys.mailvelope.com/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x9A830097CA066684
-----Original Message----- From: ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Thiago Braz Jardim Oliveira Sent: Friday, June 9, 2017 6:47 PM To: ws2-jurisdiction <ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> Subject: [Ws2-jurisdiction] RES: Question Presented (Greg Shatan)
Dear Greg,
It would have been best if you could have sent your question to the group prior to the call, and not only as the call was happening. People who were not present, and only saw the proposal in their mailing list afterwards, might perhaps be misled into thinking that the question you drafted came from the group, or that it reflected some degree of consensus within the group.
May I highlight, in that context, that you disregarded the suggestion to submit Jorge's proposal to the group for consideration. His proposal, which I and others seconded, was to have the group discuss the mandate in respect of concrete cases, and not develop an ex-ante position in abstract.
As to the question itself, my first observation is that we are not supposed to ask anything like this now. As reflected in our revised work plan of 24 April 2017, it was agreed that "the Subgroup will identify issues before it goes on to explore remedies"; "for each issue, the group will then look at proposed remedies"; "the group should not discuss a remedy until an issue has been identified that requires discussion of that remedy". The question you drafted goes in the opposite direction, as it concerns one imaginable remedy (change to ICANN's status or location), prior to having identified what are the issues to be discussed by the group.
My second remark is that your proposal makes a couple of assumptions that are not accurate nor necessary. For example, in the first bullet point, you assume that no form of immunity from domestic jurisdiction is possible for ICANN in case it remains an organisation incorporated in California. This is not true, as immunity arrangements are possible under different forms. Take the ICRC, which has domestic and international law immunities, even though it remains a private organisation governed by Swiss law.
My third remark is about the logical chain in the third bullet point. There is this suggestion that if we can't reach consensus on the mandate, then we would need to refer the question you drafted to the Plenary. Well, if there is no consensus on the mandate, then we should simply refer the mandate itself to the Plenary, not any question pre-empting hypothetical outcomes which could, by the way, only be reached in case the group engages in substantive discussions on the issues identified by the group and on the correspondent possible remedies..
Best regards,
Thiago
-----Mensagem original----- De: Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com] Enviada em: sexta-feira, 9 de junho de 2017 01:47 Para: Kavouss Arasteh Cc: Thiago Braz Jardim Oliveira; ws2-jurisdiction Assunto: Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Question Presented (Greg Shatan)
Thiago, this slide was prepared prior to the call as a strawman to assist with the discussion. As a result of the call, we now have a number of suggestions for changes or alternatives to the question, so we have moved beyond the strawman. Of course, as you have noted, some version of this question has been discussed by the Subgroup before.
Kavouss, since we have moved beyond this formulation of the question, I'm not sure it's necessary to address whether the strawman question is biased or leads to a predetermined judgment (on the latter, since there are at least two opposing answers, I don't see how that can be the case). However, if you have any observations you would like to share that would be helpful in revising the question or preparing an alternative to it, please do share your thoughts. Thank you.
Greg
On Thu, Jun 8, 2017 at 5:08 PM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Greg, Dear All, It was not, The question is biased giving a prédétermine judgement I do not agree with this question. Regards Kavouss
2017-06-08 22:48 GMT+02:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>:
Dear All, It was not, The question is biased giving a prédétermine judgement I do not agree with this question. Regards
Kavouss
2017-06-08 20:21 GMT+02:00 Thiago Braz Jardim Oliveira <thiago.jardim@itamaraty.gov.br <mailto:thiago.jardim@itamaraty.gov.br> >:
Greg,
Help me with this. Was this question you wanted to discuss at today's call presented to the group earlier than today or before today's call?
Thanks,
Thiago
-----Mensagem original----- De: ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org> ] Em nome de ws2-jurisdiction-request@icann.org <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-request@icann.org> Enviada em: quinta-feira, 8 de junho de 2017 10:29 Para: ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org Assunto: Ws2-jurisdiction Digest, Vol 12, Issue 18
Send Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list submissions to ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to ws2-jurisdiction-request@icann.org <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-request@icann.org>
You can reach the person managing the list at ws2-jurisdiction-owner@icann.org <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-owner@icann.org>
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of Ws2-jurisdiction digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Question Presented (Greg Shatan)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1 Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2017 09:28:50 -0400 From: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> To: ws2-jurisdiction <ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> Cc: "acct-staff@icann.org" <acct-staff@icann.org> Subject: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Question Presented Message-ID:
<CA+aOHUTdY0AROjojE9MXcbkL7FJ9Asgv0QvFJAN4TJmR6sT71g@mail.gmail.com <mailto:CA%2BaOHUTdY0AROjojE9MXcbkL7FJ9Asgv0QvFJAN4TJmR6sT71g@mail.gmail.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Please see attached.
I don't think that after a year anyone can reasonably say that the minority position here has not been heard, understood and considered. It just hasn't carried the day. Paul Paul Rosenzweig paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com O: +1 (202) 547-0660 M: +1 (202) 329-9650 VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 www.redbranchconsulting.com My PGP Key: https://keys.mailvelope.com/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x9A830097CA066684 -----Original Message----- From: ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of avri doria Sent: Saturday, June 10, 2017 2:06 PM To: ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org Subject: Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] RES: Question Presented (Greg Shatan) Hi, My concern is that the minority may be large enough to deny group consensus. I am not sure there is overwhelming consensus, especially when you count those of us that are somewhere in the middle. Also in any form of ICANN or rough consensus, it is important that no minority feel its position has not been heard, understood and fully considered. Greg is appropriately trying to call consensus, and, I think also appropriately, those who feel they have not been heard, understood and considered feel we are not there yet. Reading the degree of misunderstanding there still seems to b eabout the various position of others, I tend to also agree we have not yet reached any sort of ICANN or rough consensus. avri On 10-Jun-17 11:34, Paul Rosenzweig wrote:
Greg
There was an overwhelming consensus for your approach both on the call and in the subsequent discussions on the list where your ideas (or my somewhat modified version) garnered significant support. It is time, and past time, for this group to put this issue to bed.
I can understand why those whose opinions have not carried the day would prefer to not resolve the issue, but if we cannot move forward at this juncture with a wide consensus in the group (albeit with minority objection from the representatives of several governments) then we should just close the group out altogether.
Paul
PS -- You do not need to elaborate on your handling of this contentious group, which has been quite patient.
Paul Rosenzweig paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com O: +1 (202) 547-0660 M: +1 (202) 329-9650 VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 www.redbranchconsulting.com My PGP Key: https://keys.mailvelope.com/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x9A830097CA06668 4
-----Original Message----- From: ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Thiago Braz Jardim Oliveira Sent: Friday, June 9, 2017 6:47 PM To: ws2-jurisdiction <ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> Subject: [Ws2-jurisdiction] RES: Question Presented (Greg Shatan)
Dear Greg,
It would have been best if you could have sent your question to the group prior to the call, and not only as the call was happening. People who were not present, and only saw the proposal in their mailing list afterwards, might perhaps be misled into thinking that the question you drafted came from the group, or that it reflected some degree of consensus within the group.
May I highlight, in that context, that you disregarded the suggestion to submit Jorge's proposal to the group for consideration. His proposal, which I and others seconded, was to have the group discuss the mandate in respect of concrete cases, and not develop an ex-ante position in abstract.
As to the question itself, my first observation is that we are not supposed to ask anything like this now. As reflected in our revised work plan of 24 April 2017, it was agreed that "the Subgroup will identify issues before it goes on to explore remedies"; "for each issue, the group will then look at proposed remedies"; "the group should not discuss a remedy until an issue has been identified that requires discussion of that remedy". The question you drafted goes in the opposite direction, as it concerns one imaginable remedy (change to ICANN's status or location), prior to having identified what are the issues to be discussed by the group.
My second remark is that your proposal makes a couple of assumptions that are not accurate nor necessary. For example, in the first bullet point, you assume that no form of immunity from domestic jurisdiction is possible for ICANN in case it remains an organisation incorporated in California. This is not true, as immunity arrangements are possible under different forms. Take the ICRC, which has domestic and international law immunities, even though it remains a private organisation governed by Swiss law.
My third remark is about the logical chain in the third bullet point. There is this suggestion that if we can't reach consensus on the mandate, then we would need to refer the question you drafted to the Plenary. Well, if there is no consensus on the mandate, then we should simply refer the mandate itself to the Plenary, not any question pre-empting hypothetical outcomes which could, by the way, only be reached in case the group engages in substantive discussions on the issues identified by the group and on the correspondent possible remedies..
Best regards,
Thiago
-----Mensagem original----- De: Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com] Enviada em: sexta-feira, 9 de junho de 2017 01:47 Para: Kavouss Arasteh Cc: Thiago Braz Jardim Oliveira; ws2-jurisdiction Assunto: Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Question Presented (Greg Shatan)
Thiago, this slide was prepared prior to the call as a strawman to assist with the discussion. As a result of the call, we now have a number of suggestions for changes or alternatives to the question, so we have moved beyond the strawman. Of course, as you have noted, some version of this question has been discussed by the Subgroup before.
Kavouss, since we have moved beyond this formulation of the question, I'm not sure it's necessary to address whether the strawman question is biased or leads to a predetermined judgment (on the latter, since there are at least two opposing answers, I don't see how that can be the case). However, if you have any observations you would like to share that would be helpful in revising the question or preparing an alternative to it, please do share your thoughts. Thank you.
Greg
On Thu, Jun 8, 2017 at 5:08 PM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Greg, Dear All, It was not, The question is biased giving a prédétermine judgement I do not agree with this question. Regards Kavouss
2017-06-08 22:48 GMT+02:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>:
Dear All, It was not, The question is biased giving a prédétermine judgement I do not agree with this question. Regards
Kavouss
2017-06-08 20:21 GMT+02:00 Thiago Braz Jardim Oliveira <thiago.jardim@itamaraty.gov.br <mailto:thiago.jardim@itamaraty.gov.br> >:
Greg,
Help me with this. Was this question you wanted to discuss at today's call presented to the group earlier than today or before today's call?
Thanks,
Thiago
-----Mensagem original----- De: ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org> ] Em nome de ws2-jurisdiction-request@icann.org <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-request@icann.org> Enviada em: quinta-feira, 8 de junho de 2017 10:29 Para: ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org Assunto: Ws2-jurisdiction Digest, Vol 12, Issue 18
Send Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list submissions to ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to ws2-jurisdiction-request@icann.org <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-request@icann.org>
You can reach the person managing the list at ws2-jurisdiction-owner@icann.org <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-owner@icann.org>
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of Ws2-jurisdiction digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Question Presented (Greg Shatan)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1 Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2017 09:28:50 -0400 From: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> To: ws2-jurisdiction <ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> Cc: "acct-staff@icann.org" <acct-staff@icann.org> Subject: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Question Presented Message-ID:
<CA+aOHUTdY0AROjojE9MXcbkL7FJ9Asgv0QvFJAN4TJmR6sT71g@mail.gmail.com <mailto:CA%2BaOHUTdY0AROjojE9MXcbkL7FJ9Asgv0QvFJAN4TJmR6sT71g@mail.gmail.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Please see attached.
Hi, Well that is the impression I have. When I see responses to the various positions I think I am seeing people talk past each other. But I accept that you may not see me as a reasonable person. avri On 10-Jun-17 15:54, Paul Rosenzweig wrote:
I don't think that after a year anyone can reasonably say that the minority position here has not been heard, understood and considered. It just hasn't carried the day.
Paul
Paul Rosenzweig paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com O: +1 (202) 547-0660 M: +1 (202) 329-9650 VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 www.redbranchconsulting.com My PGP Key: https://keys.mailvelope.com/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x9A830097CA066684
-----Original Message----- From: ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of avri doria Sent: Saturday, June 10, 2017 2:06 PM To: ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org Subject: Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] RES: Question Presented (Greg Shatan)
Hi,
My concern is that the minority may be large enough to deny group consensus. I am not sure there is overwhelming consensus, especially when you count those of us that are somewhere in the middle.
Also in any form of ICANN or rough consensus, it is important that no minority feel its position has not been heard, understood and fully considered.
Greg is appropriately trying to call consensus, and, I think also appropriately, those who feel they have not been heard, understood and considered feel we are not there yet.
Reading the degree of misunderstanding there still seems to b eabout the various position of others, I tend to also agree we have not yet reached any sort of ICANN or rough consensus.
avri
On 10-Jun-17 11:34, Paul Rosenzweig wrote:
Greg
There was an overwhelming consensus for your approach both on the call and in the subsequent discussions on the list where your ideas (or my somewhat modified version) garnered significant support. It is time, and past time, for this group to put this issue to bed.
I can understand why those whose opinions have not carried the day would prefer to not resolve the issue, but if we cannot move forward at this juncture with a wide consensus in the group (albeit with minority objection from the representatives of several governments) then we should just close the group out altogether.
Paul
PS -- You do not need to elaborate on your handling of this contentious group, which has been quite patient.
Paul Rosenzweig paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com O: +1 (202) 547-0660 M: +1 (202) 329-9650 VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 www.redbranchconsulting.com My PGP Key: https://keys.mailvelope.com/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x9A830097CA06668 4
-----Original Message----- From: ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Thiago Braz Jardim Oliveira Sent: Friday, June 9, 2017 6:47 PM To: ws2-jurisdiction <ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> Subject: [Ws2-jurisdiction] RES: Question Presented (Greg Shatan)
Dear Greg,
It would have been best if you could have sent your question to the group prior to the call, and not only as the call was happening. People who were not present, and only saw the proposal in their mailing list afterwards, might perhaps be misled into thinking that the question you drafted came from the group, or that it reflected some degree of consensus within the group.
May I highlight, in that context, that you disregarded the suggestion to submit Jorge's proposal to the group for consideration. His proposal, which I and others seconded, was to have the group discuss the mandate in respect of concrete cases, and not develop an ex-ante position in abstract.
As to the question itself, my first observation is that we are not supposed to ask anything like this now. As reflected in our revised work plan of 24 April 2017, it was agreed that "the Subgroup will identify issues before it goes on to explore remedies"; "for each issue, the group will then look at proposed remedies"; "the group should not discuss a remedy until an issue has been identified that requires discussion of that remedy". The question you drafted goes in the opposite direction, as it concerns one imaginable remedy (change to ICANN's status or location), prior to having identified what are the issues to be discussed by the group.
My second remark is that your proposal makes a couple of assumptions that are not accurate nor necessary. For example, in the first bullet point, you assume that no form of immunity from domestic jurisdiction is possible for ICANN in case it remains an organisation incorporated in California. This is not true, as immunity arrangements are possible under different forms. Take the ICRC, which has domestic and international law immunities, even though it remains a private organisation governed by Swiss law.
My third remark is about the logical chain in the third bullet point. There is this suggestion that if we can't reach consensus on the mandate, then we would need to refer the question you drafted to the Plenary. Well, if there is no consensus on the mandate, then we should simply refer the mandate itself to the Plenary, not any question pre-empting hypothetical outcomes which could, by the way, only be reached in case the group engages in substantive discussions on the issues identified by the group and on the correspondent possible remedies..
Best regards,
Thiago
-----Mensagem original----- De: Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com] Enviada em: sexta-feira, 9 de junho de 2017 01:47 Para: Kavouss Arasteh Cc: Thiago Braz Jardim Oliveira; ws2-jurisdiction Assunto: Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Question Presented (Greg Shatan)
Thiago, this slide was prepared prior to the call as a strawman to assist with the discussion. As a result of the call, we now have a number of suggestions for changes or alternatives to the question, so we have moved beyond the strawman. Of course, as you have noted, some version of this question has been discussed by the Subgroup before.
Kavouss, since we have moved beyond this formulation of the question, I'm not sure it's necessary to address whether the strawman question is biased or leads to a predetermined judgment (on the latter, since there are at least two opposing answers, I don't see how that can be the case). However, if you have any observations you would like to share that would be helpful in revising the question or preparing an alternative to it, please do share your thoughts. Thank you.
Greg
On Thu, Jun 8, 2017 at 5:08 PM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Greg, Dear All, It was not, The question is biased giving a prédétermine judgement I do not agree with this question. Regards Kavouss
2017-06-08 22:48 GMT+02:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>:
Dear All, It was not, The question is biased giving a prédétermine judgement I do not agree with this question. Regards
Kavouss
2017-06-08 20:21 GMT+02:00 Thiago Braz Jardim Oliveira <thiago.jardim@itamaraty.gov.br <mailto:thiago.jardim@itamaraty.gov.br> >:
Greg,
Help me with this. Was this question you wanted to discuss at today's call presented to the group earlier than today or before today's call?
Thanks,
Thiago
-----Mensagem original----- De: ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org> ] Em nome de ws2-jurisdiction-request@icann.org <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-request@icann.org> Enviada em: quinta-feira, 8 de junho de 2017 10:29 Para: ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org Assunto: Ws2-jurisdiction Digest, Vol 12, Issue 18
Send Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list submissions to ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to ws2-jurisdiction-request@icann.org <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-request@icann.org>
You can reach the person managing the list at ws2-jurisdiction-owner@icann.org <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-owner@icann.org>
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of Ws2-jurisdiction digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Question Presented (Greg Shatan)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1 Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2017 09:28:50 -0400 From: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> To: ws2-jurisdiction <ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> Cc: "acct-staff@icann.org" <acct-staff@icann.org> Subject: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Question Presented Message-ID:
<CA+aOHUTdY0AROjojE9MXcbkL7FJ9Asgv0QvFJAN4TJmR6sT71g@mail.gmail.com <mailto:CA%2BaOHUTdY0AROjojE9MXcbkL7FJ9Asgv0QvFJAN4TJmR6sT71g@mail.gmail.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Please see attached.
Nope you are perfectly reasonable. But in this instance I think your perception is incorrect. I could write the next post from the other side myself if I had to. We aren't talking past each other -- we just disagree. To put it simply, you proposed an elegant compromise. Most of the majority are willing to accept it. So let's just do it. Paul Paul Rosenzweig paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com O: +1 (202) 547-0660 M: +1 (202) 329-9650 VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 www.redbranchconsulting.com My PGP Key: https://keys.mailvelope.com/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x9A830097CA066684 -----Original Message----- From: ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of avri doria Sent: Saturday, June 10, 2017 4:06 PM To: ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org Subject: Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] RES: Question Presented (Greg Shatan) Hi, Well that is the impression I have. When I see responses to the various positions I think I am seeing people talk past each other. But I accept that you may not see me as a reasonable person. avri On 10-Jun-17 15:54, Paul Rosenzweig wrote:
I don't think that after a year anyone can reasonably say that the minority position here has not been heard, understood and considered. It just hasn't carried the day.
Paul
Paul Rosenzweig paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com O: +1 (202) 547-0660 M: +1 (202) 329-9650 VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 www.redbranchconsulting.com My PGP Key: https://keys.mailvelope.com/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x9A830097CA06668 4
-----Original Message----- From: ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of avri doria Sent: Saturday, June 10, 2017 2:06 PM To: ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org Subject: Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] RES: Question Presented (Greg Shatan)
Hi,
My concern is that the minority may be large enough to deny group consensus. I am not sure there is overwhelming consensus, especially when you count those of us that are somewhere in the middle.
Also in any form of ICANN or rough consensus, it is important that no minority feel its position has not been heard, understood and fully considered.
Greg is appropriately trying to call consensus, and, I think also appropriately, those who feel they have not been heard, understood and considered feel we are not there yet.
Reading the degree of misunderstanding there still seems to b eabout the various position of others, I tend to also agree we have not yet reached any sort of ICANN or rough consensus.
avri
On 10-Jun-17 11:34, Paul Rosenzweig wrote:
Greg
There was an overwhelming consensus for your approach both on the call and in the subsequent discussions on the list where your ideas (or my somewhat modified version) garnered significant support. It is time, and past time, for this group to put this issue to bed.
I can understand why those whose opinions have not carried the day would prefer to not resolve the issue, but if we cannot move forward at this juncture with a wide consensus in the group (albeit with minority objection from the representatives of several governments) then we should just close the group out altogether.
Paul
PS -- You do not need to elaborate on your handling of this contentious group, which has been quite patient.
Paul Rosenzweig paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com O: +1 (202) 547-0660 M: +1 (202) 329-9650 VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 www.redbranchconsulting.com My PGP Key: https://keys.mailvelope.com/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x9A830097CA0666 8 4
-----Original Message----- From: ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Thiago Braz Jardim Oliveira Sent: Friday, June 9, 2017 6:47 PM To: ws2-jurisdiction <ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> Subject: [Ws2-jurisdiction] RES: Question Presented (Greg Shatan)
Dear Greg,
It would have been best if you could have sent your question to the group prior to the call, and not only as the call was happening. People who were not present, and only saw the proposal in their mailing list afterwards, might perhaps be misled into thinking that the question you drafted came from the group, or that it reflected some degree of consensus within the group.
May I highlight, in that context, that you disregarded the suggestion to submit Jorge's proposal to the group for consideration. His proposal, which I and others seconded, was to have the group discuss the mandate in respect of concrete cases, and not develop an ex-ante position in abstract.
As to the question itself, my first observation is that we are not supposed to ask anything like this now. As reflected in our revised work plan of 24 April 2017, it was agreed that "the Subgroup will identify issues before it goes on to explore remedies"; "for each issue, the group will then look at proposed remedies"; "the group should not discuss a remedy until an issue has been identified that requires discussion of that remedy". The question you drafted goes in the opposite direction, as it concerns one imaginable remedy (change to ICANN's status or location), prior to having identified what are the issues to be discussed by the group.
My second remark is that your proposal makes a couple of assumptions that are not accurate nor necessary. For example, in the first bullet point, you assume that no form of immunity from domestic jurisdiction is possible for ICANN in case it remains an organisation incorporated in California. This is not true, as immunity arrangements are possible under different forms. Take the ICRC, which has domestic and international law immunities, even though it remains a private organisation governed by Swiss law.
My third remark is about the logical chain in the third bullet point. There is this suggestion that if we can't reach consensus on the mandate, then we would need to refer the question you drafted to the Plenary. Well, if there is no consensus on the mandate, then we should simply refer the mandate itself to the Plenary, not any question pre-empting hypothetical outcomes which could, by the way, only be reached in case the group engages in substantive discussions on the issues identified by the group and on the correspondent possible remedies..
Best regards,
Thiago
-----Mensagem original----- De: Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com] Enviada em: sexta-feira, 9 de junho de 2017 01:47 Para: Kavouss Arasteh Cc: Thiago Braz Jardim Oliveira; ws2-jurisdiction Assunto: Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Question Presented (Greg Shatan)
Thiago, this slide was prepared prior to the call as a strawman to assist with the discussion. As a result of the call, we now have a number of suggestions for changes or alternatives to the question, so we have moved beyond the strawman. Of course, as you have noted, some version of this question has been discussed by the Subgroup before.
Kavouss, since we have moved beyond this formulation of the question, I'm not sure it's necessary to address whether the strawman question is biased or leads to a predetermined judgment (on the latter, since there are at least two opposing answers, I don't see how that can be the case). However, if you have any observations you would like to share that would be helpful in revising the question or preparing an alternative to it, please do share your thoughts. Thank you.
Greg
On Thu, Jun 8, 2017 at 5:08 PM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Greg, Dear All, It was not, The question is biased giving a prédétermine judgement I do not agree with this question. Regards Kavouss
2017-06-08 22:48 GMT+02:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>:
Dear All, It was not, The question is biased giving a prédétermine judgement I do not agree with this question. Regards
Kavouss
2017-06-08 20:21 GMT+02:00 Thiago Braz Jardim Oliveira <thiago.jardim@itamaraty.gov.br <mailto:thiago.jardim@itamaraty.gov.br> >:
Greg,
Help me with this. Was this question you wanted to discuss at today's call presented to the group earlier than today or before today's call?
Thanks,
Thiago
-----Mensagem original----- De: ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org> ] Em nome de ws2-jurisdiction-request@icann.org <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-request@icann.org> Enviada em: quinta-feira, 8 de junho de 2017 10:29 Para: ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org Assunto: Ws2-jurisdiction Digest, Vol 12, Issue 18
Send Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list submissions to ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to ws2-jurisdiction-request@icann.org <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-request@icann.org>
You can reach the person managing the list at ws2-jurisdiction-owner@icann.org <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-owner@icann.org>
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of Ws2-jurisdiction digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Question Presented (Greg Shatan)
--------------------------------------------------------------------- -
Message: 1 Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2017 09:28:50 -0400 From: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> To: ws2-jurisdiction <ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> Cc: "acct-staff@icann.org" <acct-staff@icann.org> Subject: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Question Presented Message-ID:
<CA+aOHUTdY0AROjojE9MXcbkL7FJ9Asgv0QvFJAN4TJmR6sT71g@mail.gmail.com <mailto:CA%2BaOHUTdY0AROjojE9MXcbkL7FJ9Asgv0QvFJAN4TJmR6sT71g@mail.gmail.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Please see attached.
I fully support the remarks made by Thiago and I am confident that several other participants who have the same views as we two have. I will speak on this issue in the coming plenary. By the way , majority and minority has no relevance in this regard I will also speak on that in the plenary Regards Kavouss 2017-06-10 0:46 GMT+02:00 Thiago Braz Jardim Oliveira < thiago.jardim@itamaraty.gov.br>:
Dear Greg,
It would have been best if you could have sent your question to the group prior to the call, and not only as the call was happening. People who were not present, and only saw the proposal in their mailing list afterwards, might perhaps be misled into thinking that the question you drafted came from the group, or that it reflected some degree of consensus within the group.
May I highlight, in that context, that you disregarded the suggestion to submit Jorge's proposal to the group for consideration. His proposal, which I and others seconded, was to have the group discuss the mandate in respect of concrete cases, and not develop an ex-ante position in abstract.
As to the question itself, my first observation is that we are not supposed to ask anything like this now. As reflected in our revised work plan of 24 April 2017, it was agreed that "the Subgroup will identify issues before it goes on to explore remedies"; "for each issue, the group will then look at proposed remedies"; "the group should not discuss a remedy until an issue has been identified that requires discussion of that remedy". The question you drafted goes in the opposite direction, as it concerns one imaginable remedy (change to ICANN's status or location), prior to having identified what are the issues to be discussed by the group.
My second remark is that your proposal makes a couple of assumptions that are not accurate nor necessary. For example, in the first bullet point, you assume that no form of immunity from domestic jurisdiction is possible for ICANN in case it remains an organisation incorporated in California. This is not true, as immunity arrangements are possible under different forms. Take the ICRC, which has domestic and international law immunities, even though it remains a private organisation governed by Swiss law.
My third remark is about the logical chain in the third bullet point. There is this suggestion that if we can't reach consensus on the mandate, then we would need to refer the question you drafted to the Plenary. Well, if there is no consensus on the mandate, then we should simply refer the mandate itself to the Plenary, not any question pre-empting hypothetical outcomes which could, by the way, only be reached in case the group engages in substantive discussions on the issues identified by the group and on the correspondent possible remedies..
Best regards,
Thiago
-----Mensagem original----- De: Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com] Enviada em: sexta-feira, 9 de junho de 2017 01:47 Para: Kavouss Arasteh Cc: Thiago Braz Jardim Oliveira; ws2-jurisdiction Assunto: Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Question Presented (Greg Shatan)
Thiago, this slide was prepared prior to the call as a strawman to assist with the discussion. As a result of the call, we now have a number of suggestions for changes or alternatives to the question, so we have moved beyond the strawman. Of course, as you have noted, some version of this question has been discussed by the Subgroup before.
Kavouss, since we have moved beyond this formulation of the question, I'm not sure it's necessary to address whether the strawman question is biased or leads to a predetermined judgment (on the latter, since there are at least two opposing answers, I don't see how that can be the case). However, if you have any observations you would like to share that would be helpful in revising the question or preparing an alternative to it, please do share your thoughts. Thank you.
Greg
On Thu, Jun 8, 2017 at 5:08 PM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Greg, Dear All, It was not, The question is biased giving a prédétermine judgement I do not agree with this question. Regards Kavouss
2017-06-08 22:48 GMT+02:00 Kavouss Arasteh < kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>:
Dear All, It was not, The question is biased giving a prédétermine judgement I do not agree with this question. Regards
Kavouss
2017-06-08 20:21 GMT+02:00 Thiago Braz Jardim Oliveira < thiago.jardim@itamaraty.gov.br <mailto:thiago.jardim@itamaraty.gov.br> >:
Greg,
Help me with this. Was this question you wanted to discuss at today's call presented to the group earlier than today or before today's call?
Thanks,
Thiago
-----Mensagem original----- De: ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org <mailto: ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction- bounces@icann.org <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org> ] Em nome de ws2-jurisdiction-request@icann.org <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction- request@icann.org> Enviada em: quinta-feira, 8 de junho de 2017 10:29 Para: ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org Assunto: Ws2-jurisdiction Digest, Vol 12, Issue 18
Send Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list submissions to ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit https://mm.icann.org/mailman/ listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/ listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to ws2-jurisdiction-request@icann.org <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-request@icann.org>
You can reach the person managing the list at ws2-jurisdiction-owner@icann.org <mailto: ws2-jurisdiction-owner@icann.org>
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of Ws2-jurisdiction digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Question Presented (Greg Shatan)
------------------------------ ----------------------------------------
Message: 1 Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2017 09:28:50 -0400 From: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> To: ws2-jurisdiction <ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> Cc: "acct-staff@icann.org" <acct-staff@icann.org> Subject: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Question Presented Message-ID: <CA+aOHUTdY0AROjojE9MXcbkL7FJ9Asgv 0QvFJAN4TJmR6sT71g@mail.gmail.com <mailto:CA% 2BaOHUTdY0AROjojE9MXcbkL7FJ9Asgv0QvFJAN4TJmR6sT71g@mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Please see attached.
Of course it has relevance. We operate under ICANN’s consensus rules, but where a small minority blocks consensus we can have rough consensus. I would have thought that as a long-time participant in ICANN you knew that Kavouss. Paul Paul Rosenzweig <mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com O: +1 (202) 547-0660 M: +1 (202) 329-9650 VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 <http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/> www.redbranchconsulting.com My PGP Key: <https://keys.mailvelope.com/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x9A830097CA066684> https://keys.mailvelope.com/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x9A830097CA066684 From: ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Kavouss Arasteh Sent: Saturday, June 10, 2017 12:05 PM To: Thiago Braz Jardim Oliveira <thiago.jardim@itamaraty.gov.br>; Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com>; ws2-jurisdiction <ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] RES: Question Presented (Greg Shatan) I fully support the remarks made by Thiago and I am confident that several other participants who have the same views as we two have. I will speak on this issue in the coming plenary. By the way , majority and minority has no relevance in this regard I will also speak on that in the plenary Regards Kavouss 2017-06-10 0:46 GMT+02:00 Thiago Braz Jardim Oliveira <thiago.jardim@itamaraty.gov.br <mailto:thiago.jardim@itamaraty.gov.br> >: Dear Greg, It would have been best if you could have sent your question to the group prior to the call, and not only as the call was happening. People who were not present, and only saw the proposal in their mailing list afterwards, might perhaps be misled into thinking that the question you drafted came from the group, or that it reflected some degree of consensus within the group. May I highlight, in that context, that you disregarded the suggestion to submit Jorge's proposal to the group for consideration. His proposal, which I and others seconded, was to have the group discuss the mandate in respect of concrete cases, and not develop an ex-ante position in abstract. As to the question itself, my first observation is that we are not supposed to ask anything like this now. As reflected in our revised work plan of 24 April 2017, it was agreed that "the Subgroup will identify issues before it goes on to explore remedies"; "for each issue, the group will then look at proposed remedies"; "the group should not discuss a remedy until an issue has been identified that requires discussion of that remedy". The question you drafted goes in the opposite direction, as it concerns one imaginable remedy (change to ICANN's status or location), prior to having identified what are the issues to be discussed by the group. My second remark is that your proposal makes a couple of assumptions that are not accurate nor necessary. For example, in the first bullet point, you assume that no form of immunity from domestic jurisdiction is possible for ICANN in case it remains an organisation incorporated in California. This is not true, as immunity arrangements are possible under different forms. Take the ICRC, which has domestic and international law immunities, even though it remains a private organisation governed by Swiss law. My third remark is about the logical chain in the third bullet point. There is this suggestion that if we can't reach consensus on the mandate, then we would need to refer the question you drafted to the Plenary. Well, if there is no consensus on the mandate, then we should simply refer the mandate itself to the Plenary, not any question pre-empting hypothetical outcomes which could, by the way, only be reached in case the group engages in substantive discussions on the issues identified by the group and on the correspondent possible remedies.. Best regards, Thiago -----Mensagem original----- De: Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> ] Enviada em: sexta-feira, 9 de junho de 2017 01:47 Para: Kavouss Arasteh Cc: Thiago Braz Jardim Oliveira; ws2-jurisdiction Assunto: Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Question Presented (Greg Shatan) Thiago, this slide was prepared prior to the call as a strawman to assist with the discussion. As a result of the call, we now have a number of suggestions for changes or alternatives to the question, so we have moved beyond the strawman. Of course, as you have noted, some version of this question has been discussed by the Subgroup before. Kavouss, since we have moved beyond this formulation of the question, I'm not sure it's necessary to address whether the strawman question is biased or leads to a predetermined judgment (on the latter, since there are at least two opposing answers, I don't see how that can be the case). However, if you have any observations you would like to share that would be helpful in revising the question or preparing an alternative to it, please do share your thoughts. Thank you. Greg On Thu, Jun 8, 2017 at 5:08 PM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> > wrote: Dear Greg, Dear All, It was not, The question is biased giving a prédétermine judgement I do not agree with this question. Regards Kavouss 2017-06-08 22:48 GMT+02:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> >: Dear All, It was not, The question is biased giving a prédétermine judgement I do not agree with this question. Regards Kavouss 2017-06-08 20:21 GMT+02:00 Thiago Braz Jardim Oliveira <thiago.jardim@itamaraty.gov.br <mailto:thiago.jardim@itamaraty.gov.br> <mailto:thiago.jardim@itamaraty.gov.br <mailto:thiago.jardim@itamaraty.gov.br> > >: Greg, Help me with this. Was this question you wanted to discuss at today's call presented to the group earlier than today or before today's call? Thanks, Thiago -----Mensagem original----- De: ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org> <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org> > [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org> <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org> > ] Em nome de ws2-jurisdiction-request@icann.org <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-request@icann.org> <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-request@icann.org <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-request@icann.org> > Enviada em: quinta-feira, 8 de junho de 2017 10:29 Para: ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> Assunto: Ws2-jurisdiction Digest, Vol 12, Issue 18 Send Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list submissions to ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to ws2-jurisdiction-request@icann.org <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-request@icann.org> <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-request@icann.org <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-request@icann.org> > You can reach the person managing the list at ws2-jurisdiction-owner@icann.org <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-owner@icann.org> <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-owner@icann.org <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-owner@icann.org> > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of Ws2-jurisdiction digest..." Today's Topics: 1. Question Presented (Greg Shatan) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2017 09:28:50 -0400 From: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> > To: ws2-jurisdiction <ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> > Cc: "acct-staff@icann.org <mailto:acct-staff@icann.org> " <acct-staff@icann.org <mailto:acct-staff@icann.org> > Subject: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Question Presented Message-ID: <CA+aOHUTdY0AROjojE9MXcbkL7FJ9Asgv0QvFJAN4TJmR6sT71g@mail.gmail.com <mailto:CA%2BaOHUTdY0AROjojE9MXcbkL7FJ9Asgv0QvFJAN4TJmR6sT71g@mail.gmail.com> <mailto:CA%2BaOHUTdY0AROjojE9MXcbkL7FJ9Asgv0QvFJAN4TJmR6sT71g@mail.gmail.com <mailto:CA%252BaOHUTdY0AROjojE9MXcbkL7FJ9Asgv0QvFJAN4TJmR6sT71g@mail.gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Please see attached.
+1 Paul Best regards, John Laprise, Ph.D. Principal Consultant <http://www.linkedin.com/in/jplaprise/> http://www.linkedin.com/in/jplaprise/ From: ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Paul Rosenzweig Sent: Saturday, June 10, 2017 11:23 AM To: 'Kavouss Arasteh' <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>; 'Thiago Braz Jardim Oliveira' <thiago.jardim@itamaraty.gov.br>; 'Greg Shatan' <gregshatanipc@gmail.com>; 'ws2-jurisdiction' <ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] RES: Question Presented (Greg Shatan) Of course it has relevance. We operate under ICANN’s consensus rules, but where a small minority blocks consensus we can have rough consensus. I would have thought that as a long-time participant in ICANN you knew that Kavouss. Paul Paul Rosenzweig <mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com O: +1 (202) 547-0660 M: +1 (202) 329-9650 VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 <http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/> www.redbranchconsulting.com My PGP Key: <https://keys.mailvelope.com/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x9A830097CA066684> https://keys.mailvelope.com/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x9A830097CA066684 From: ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Kavouss Arasteh Sent: Saturday, June 10, 2017 12:05 PM To: Thiago Braz Jardim Oliveira <thiago.jardim@itamaraty.gov.br <mailto:thiago.jardim@itamaraty.gov.br> >; Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> >; ws2-jurisdiction <ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> > Subject: Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] RES: Question Presented (Greg Shatan) I fully support the remarks made by Thiago and I am confident that several other participants who have the same views as we two have. I will speak on this issue in the coming plenary. By the way , majority and minority has no relevance in this regard I will also speak on that in the plenary Regards Kavouss 2017-06-10 0:46 GMT+02:00 Thiago Braz Jardim Oliveira <thiago.jardim@itamaraty.gov.br <mailto:thiago.jardim@itamaraty.gov.br> >: Dear Greg, It would have been best if you could have sent your question to the group prior to the call, and not only as the call was happening. People who were not present, and only saw the proposal in their mailing list afterwards, might perhaps be misled into thinking that the question you drafted came from the group, or that it reflected some degree of consensus within the group. May I highlight, in that context, that you disregarded the suggestion to submit Jorge's proposal to the group for consideration. His proposal, which I and others seconded, was to have the group discuss the mandate in respect of concrete cases, and not develop an ex-ante position in abstract. As to the question itself, my first observation is that we are not supposed to ask anything like this now. As reflected in our revised work plan of 24 April 2017, it was agreed that "the Subgroup will identify issues before it goes on to explore remedies"; "for each issue, the group will then look at proposed remedies"; "the group should not discuss a remedy until an issue has been identified that requires discussion of that remedy". The question you drafted goes in the opposite direction, as it concerns one imaginable remedy (change to ICANN's status or location), prior to having identified what are the issues to be discussed by the group. My second remark is that your proposal makes a couple of assumptions that are not accurate nor necessary. For example, in the first bullet point, you assume that no form of immunity from domestic jurisdiction is possible for ICANN in case it remains an organisation incorporated in California. This is not true, as immunity arrangements are possible under different forms. Take the ICRC, which has domestic and international law immunities, even though it remains a private organisation governed by Swiss law. My third remark is about the logical chain in the third bullet point. There is this suggestion that if we can't reach consensus on the mandate, then we would need to refer the question you drafted to the Plenary. Well, if there is no consensus on the mandate, then we should simply refer the mandate itself to the Plenary, not any question pre-empting hypothetical outcomes which could, by the way, only be reached in case the group engages in substantive discussions on the issues identified by the group and on the correspondent possible remedies.. Best regards, Thiago -----Mensagem original----- De: Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> ] Enviada em: sexta-feira, 9 de junho de 2017 01:47 Para: Kavouss Arasteh Cc: Thiago Braz Jardim Oliveira; ws2-jurisdiction Assunto: Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Question Presented (Greg Shatan) Thiago, this slide was prepared prior to the call as a strawman to assist with the discussion. As a result of the call, we now have a number of suggestions for changes or alternatives to the question, so we have moved beyond the strawman. Of course, as you have noted, some version of this question has been discussed by the Subgroup before. Kavouss, since we have moved beyond this formulation of the question, I'm not sure it's necessary to address whether the strawman question is biased or leads to a predetermined judgment (on the latter, since there are at least two opposing answers, I don't see how that can be the case). However, if you have any observations you would like to share that would be helpful in revising the question or preparing an alternative to it, please do share your thoughts. Thank you. Greg On Thu, Jun 8, 2017 at 5:08 PM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> > wrote: Dear Greg, Dear All, It was not, The question is biased giving a prédétermine judgement I do not agree with this question. Regards Kavouss 2017-06-08 22:48 GMT+02:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> >: Dear All, It was not, The question is biased giving a prédétermine judgement I do not agree with this question. Regards Kavouss 2017-06-08 20:21 GMT+02:00 Thiago Braz Jardim Oliveira <thiago.jardim@itamaraty.gov.br <mailto:thiago.jardim@itamaraty.gov.br> <mailto:thiago.jardim@itamaraty.gov.br <mailto:thiago.jardim@itamaraty.gov.br> > >: Greg, Help me with this. Was this question you wanted to discuss at today's call presented to the group earlier than today or before today's call? Thanks, Thiago -----Mensagem original----- De: ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org> <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org> > [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org> <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org> > ] Em nome de ws2-jurisdiction-request@icann.org <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-request@icann.org> <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-request@icann.org <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-request@icann.org> > Enviada em: quinta-feira, 8 de junho de 2017 10:29 Para: ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> Assunto: Ws2-jurisdiction Digest, Vol 12, Issue 18 Send Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list submissions to ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to ws2-jurisdiction-request@icann.org <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-request@icann.org> <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-request@icann.org <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-request@icann.org> > You can reach the person managing the list at ws2-jurisdiction-owner@icann.org <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-owner@icann.org> <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-owner@icann.org <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-owner@icann.org> > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of Ws2-jurisdiction digest..." Today's Topics: 1. Question Presented (Greg Shatan) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2017 09:28:50 -0400 From: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> > To: ws2-jurisdiction <ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> > Cc: "acct-staff@icann.org <mailto:acct-staff@icann.org> " <acct-staff@icann.org <mailto:acct-staff@icann.org> > Subject: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Question Presented Message-ID: <CA+aOHUTdY0AROjojE9MXcbkL7FJ9Asgv0QvFJAN4TJmR6sT71g@mail.gmail.com <mailto:CA%2BaOHUTdY0AROjojE9MXcbkL7FJ9Asgv0QvFJAN4TJmR6sT71g@mail.gmail.com> <mailto:CA%2BaOHUTdY0AROjojE9MXcbkL7FJ9Asgv0QvFJAN4TJmR6sT71g@mail.gmail.com <mailto:CA%252BaOHUTdY0AROjojE9MXcbkL7FJ9Asgv0QvFJAN4TJmR6sT71g@mail.gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Please see attached.
participants (7)
-
avri doria -
Greg Shatan -
John Laprise -
Jorge.Cancio＠bakom.admin.ch -
Kavouss Arasteh -
Paul Rosenzweig -
Thiago Braz Jardim Oliveira