Dear all, I’m a bit surprised by all the tension generated in this subgroup due to the mere possibility of sending a one-page questionnaire to gather the input from the broader community. I am also confused about the repeated claim that because the current jurisdiction has worked for 19 years, then we should not change anything at all. Why did we through the whole IANA transition and accountability process then? Just because it worked – for some – does not mean it can’t be enhanced, nor does it mean that new problems won’t arise in the near future. Farzaneh and Parminder gave very precise examples of current problems that are specifically caused by the current US jurisdiction. Based on my reading of previous exchanges, I think it is important to keep question 4 and, like Jorge, in the spirit of compromise, I would accept to support alternative 1, if we include the change proposed by Seun and supported by Parminder (taking into account “future” cases in which the current jurisdiction might be a problem). We owe the community a thorough examination of the jurisdiction issue, and for those of you who might not remember that, the acceptance of the Marrakech package was based on the commitment to deliver that through WS2. That being said, asking for knowledge regarding alternative jurisdictions is, in my opinion, yet another issue. It sounds more like a theoretical / academic question at this stage. My suggestion would be to add a Question 5 on possible alternative jurisdictions – Eric and Parminder already presented some possible ways – that would be distinct from Question 4. Anyway, please let’s keep an open mind, talk to each other with respect and try not to prevent anyone from expressing their views. Let’s work in the spirit of compromise. Best, Ghislain de SALINS GAC French representative De : ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org] De la part de Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch Envoyé : mardi 10 janvier 2017 10:26 À : gregshatanipc@gmail.com; ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org Cc : acct-staff@icann.org Objet : [***] Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Agenda for Meeting #16 at 13:00 UTC Dear Greg and all Please accept my apologies for missing this meeting, but it collides with a prior F2F engagement. @staff: if any polling takes place, please take into account that I favor alternative 1 for question 4. Also, that I believe that a flexible and constructive approach from all participants regarding this specific questions would help to get our work out of the present impasse. After all, “it’s only a question”… the answers which may come in will be analyzed on their merits by us and the wider CCWG… Best regards Jorge Von: ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org<mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org] Im Auftrag von Greg Shatan Gesendet: Dienstag, 10. Januar 2017 06:18 An: ws2-jurisdiction <ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org<mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org>> Cc: acct-staff@icann.org<mailto:acct-staff@icann.org> Betreff: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Agenda for Meeting #16 at 13:00 UTC All, Here is the Agenda for the upcoming meeting. Supporting materials will be sent shortly. Greg

Dear Greg, Thank for your efforts. White am studying your text and that of Parminder, please kindly note that after I agreed with your explanation , I have suggested a very simple amendments to the text of Astérix, by adding the word " including " before ICANN and by also adding a comma with the following text " as the case may be" Pls kindly include that simple amendments Regards Kavouss 2017-01-10 13:34 GMT+01:00 Perez Galindo, Rafael <RPEREZGA@minetad.es>:

+1 Ghislain.

Rafael

*De:* ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction- bounces@icann.org] *En nombre de *DE SALINS Ghislain *Enviado el:* martes, 10 de enero de 2017 11:05 *Para:* gregshatanipc@gmail.com; ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org *CC:* acct-staff@icann.org *Asunto:* Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Agenda for Meeting #16 at 13:00 UTC

Dear all,

I’m a bit surprised by all the tension generated in this subgroup due to the mere possibility of sending a one-page questionnaire to gather the input from the broader community.

I am also confused about the repeated claim that because the current jurisdiction has worked for 19 years, then we should not change anything at all. Why did we through the whole IANA transition and accountability process then?

Just because it worked – for some – does not mean it can’t be enhanced, nor does it mean that new problems won’t arise in the near future. Farzaneh and Parminder gave very precise examples of current problems that are specifically caused by the current US jurisdiction.

Based on my reading of previous exchanges, I think *it is important to keep question 4* and, like Jorge, in the spirit of compromise, I would accept to support alternative 1, if we include the change proposed by Seun and supported by Parminder (taking into account “future” cases in which the current jurisdiction might be a problem).

We owe the community a thorough examination of the jurisdiction issue, and for those of you who might not remember that, the acceptance of the Marrakech package was based on the commitment to deliver that through WS2.

That being said, asking for knowledge regarding alternative jurisdictions is, in my opinion, yet another issue. It sounds more like a theoretical / academic question at this stage. My suggestion would be to add a Question 5 on possible alternative jurisdictions – Eric and Parminder already presented some possible ways – that would be distinct from Question 4.

Anyway, please let’s keep an open mind, talk to each other with respect and try not to prevent anyone from expressing their views. Let’s work in the spirit of compromise.

Best,

Ghislain de SALINS

GAC French representative

*De :* ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction- bounces@icann.org <ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org>] *De la part de* Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch *Envoyé :* mardi 10 janvier 2017 10:26 *À :* gregshatanipc@gmail.com; ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org *Cc :* acct-staff@icann.org *Objet :* [***] Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Agenda for Meeting #16 at 13:00 UTC

Dear Greg and all

Please accept my apologies for missing this meeting, but it collides with a prior F2F engagement.

@staff: if any polling takes place, please take into account that I favor alternative 1 for question 4. Also, that I believe that a flexible and constructive approach from all participants regarding this specific questions would help to get our work out of the present impasse. After all, “it’s only a question”… the answers which may come in will be analyzed on their merits by us and the wider CCWG…

Best regards

Jorge

*Von:* ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction- bounces@icann.org <ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org>] *Im Auftrag von *Greg Shatan *Gesendet:* Dienstag, 10. Januar 2017 06:18 *An:* ws2-jurisdiction <ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> *Cc:* acct-staff@icann.org *Betreff:* [Ws2-jurisdiction] Agenda for Meeting #16 at 13:00 UTC

All,

Here is the Agenda for the upcoming meeting. Supporting materials will be sent shortly.

Greg

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