All: Here is the agenda for the upcoming Jurisdiction Subgroup Meeting at 19:00 UTC today. Greg *Greg Shatan *C: 917-816-6428 S: gsshatan Phone-to-Skype: 646-845-9428 gregshatanipc@gmail.com
My apologies to group and Greg for absence – I intended to attend the call but am at present in a Hilton Hotel in Brussels where the internet access has been abysmal – until just a few minutes ago. Will ry to join now. David David McAuley International Policy Manager Verisign Inc. 703-948-4154 From: ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Greg Shatan Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2017 12:44 PM To: ws2-jurisdiction <ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> Subject: [EXTERNAL] [Ws2-jurisdiction] Agenda for Jurisdiction Subgroup Meeting #24 All: Here is the agenda for the upcoming Jurisdiction Subgroup Meeting at 19:00 UTC today. Greg Greg Shatan C: 917-816-6428 S: gsshatan Phone-to-Skype: 646-845-9428 gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>
Colleagues, Excuse my disappointed tone, but I am unable to get a fix on what direction are we headed right now, or whether we are moving at all . We seem to have laid all our hope on some legalistic pursuits, which happen to be of a kind with known outcomes. On one side we have sent out a questionnaire with an exceedingly narrow remit of seeking past occurrences where ICANN's US jurisdiction may have come in conflict with ICANN's working. All of these instances are very widely known and discussed, and whatever inferences each of us makes out of them is what we make out of them. Though these differences and their rationales can be discussed here. There is not going to any case of some guy from deep Indian jungles suddenly coming out with a story of an old illicit liaison with ICANN, which will then open our eyes to something very new. Whom are we kidding, other than ourselves, all the cases that exist are know - quite well known. If we want to, we can discuss them. But this waiting for godot isnt going to be of any use. If some people believe that this exercise is going to make us able to say; well, we looked everywhere, and we found no proof that US jurisdiction of ICANN has any (or any substantial) implication for ICANN's policy making processes, that is simply plain silly. That is not going to happen. Our differences here are not about some unknown historical facts, but about facts that we all mutually know, and our respective inferences from them. Similarly, we have referred to ICANN legal issues of jurisdiction and jurisprudence that are so obvious and simple that even a non lawyer like me is pretty clear about them. In any case, there is enough literature out there on how courts exercise jurisdiction, and what trumps what, and so on. There is no way that this exercise is going to come up with some kind of proof that US jurisdiction is only as much applicable over ICANN as any other jurisdiction, or that even if ICANN was incorporated elsewhere, or had judicial immunity, the US jurisdiction will still have same kind of powers over ICANN as it does now. I think we should stop shadow boxing, and get on with real tasks. IMHO, this group is mostly not able to decide what to do, knowing that the differences of opinions (and excuse me to say, interests) are very wide, and also very basic. And therefore we are simply trying to look like keeping busy. I dont think this is a very productive use of people's time. Does anyone have any bright idea about how we can wrap this all up... parminder On Wednesday 29 March 2017 12:58 AM, McAuley, David via Ws2-jurisdiction wrote:
My apologies to group and Greg for absence – I intended to attend the call but am at present in a Hilton Hotel in Brussels where the internet access has been abysmal – until just a few minutes ago. Will ry to join now.
David
David McAuley
International Policy Manager
Verisign Inc.
703-948-4154
*From:*ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Greg Shatan *Sent:* Tuesday, March 28, 2017 12:44 PM *To:* ws2-jurisdiction <ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> *Subject:* [EXTERNAL] [Ws2-jurisdiction] Agenda for Jurisdiction Subgroup Meeting #24
All:
Here is the agenda for the upcoming Jurisdiction Subgroup Meeting at 19:00 UTC today.
Greg
*Greg Shatan *C: 917-816-6428 S: gsshatan Phone-to-Skype: 646-845-9428 gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>
_______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
I agree that the gaps are unbridgeable. I recommend we close this subgroup with a report to the full plenary that there is nothing approaching consensus on how to move forward and that, as a result, we will bring no recommendations or report to the plenary 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 parminder Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2017 4:13 AM To: ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org Subject: Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Agenda for Jurisdiction Subgroup Meeting #24 Colleagues, Excuse my disappointed tone, but I am unable to get a fix on what direction are we headed right now, or whether we are moving at all . We seem to have laid all our hope on some legalistic pursuits, which happen to be of a kind with known outcomes. On one side we have sent out a questionnaire with an exceedingly narrow remit of seeking past occurrences where ICANN's US jurisdiction may have come in conflict with ICANN's working. All of these instances are very widely known and discussed, and whatever inferences each of us makes out of them is what we make out of them. Though these differences and their rationales can be discussed here. There is not going to any case of some guy from deep Indian jungles suddenly coming out with a story of an old illicit liaison with ICANN, which will then open our eyes to something very new. Whom are we kidding, other than ourselves, all the cases that exist are know - quite well known. If we want to, we can discuss them. But this waiting for godot isnt going to be of any use. If some people believe that this exercise is going to make us able to say; well, we looked everywhere, and we found no proof that US jurisdiction of ICANN has any (or any substantial) implication for ICANN's policy making processes, that is simply plain silly. That is not going to happen. Our differences here are not about some unknown historical facts, but about facts that we all mutually know, and our respective inferences from them. Similarly, we have referred to ICANN legal issues of jurisdiction and jurisprudence that are so obvious and simple that even a non lawyer like me is pretty clear about them. In any case, there is enough literature out there on how courts exercise jurisdiction, and what trumps what, and so on. There is no way that this exercise is going to come up with some kind of proof that US jurisdiction is only as much applicable over ICANN as any other jurisdiction, or that even if ICANN was incorporated elsewhere, or had judicial immunity, the US jurisdiction will still have same kind of powers over ICANN as it does now. I think we should stop shadow boxing, and get on with real tasks. IMHO, this group is mostly not able to decide what to do, knowing that the differences of opinions (and excuse me to say, interests) are very wide, and also very basic. And therefore we are simply trying to look like keeping busy. I dont think this is a very productive use of people's time. Does anyone have any bright idea about how we can wrap this all up... parminder On Wednesday 29 March 2017 12:58 AM, McAuley, David via Ws2-jurisdiction wrote: My apologies to group and Greg for absence - I intended to attend the call but am at present in a Hilton Hotel in Brussels where the internet access has been abysmal - until just a few minutes ago. Will ry to join now. David David McAuley International Policy Manager Verisign Inc. 703-948-4154 From: ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Greg Shatan Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2017 12:44 PM To: ws2-jurisdiction <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> <ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> Subject: [EXTERNAL] [Ws2-jurisdiction] Agenda for Jurisdiction Subgroup Meeting #24 All: Here is the agenda for the upcoming Jurisdiction Subgroup Meeting at 19:00 UTC today. Greg Greg Shatan C: 917-816-6428 S: gsshatan Phone-to-Skype: 646-845-9428 <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> gregshatanipc@gmail.com _______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org <mailto:Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
participants (4)
-
Greg Shatan -
McAuley, David -
parminder -
Paul Rosenzweig