Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] [CCWG-ACCT] Caption Notes-Recordings-Transcript links for Jurisdiction Meeting #35 - 14 June 2017
Dear Greg Thank you for your views. I'm also interested in the views of others as Avri and Segun, that seem to have good points to make and are correcting some things which were put to the group. As to my proposal: from the transcript it appears that you reported about it, but no debate took place. Hence your assertion that it did not "garner substantial support". Instead Thomas R. intervened with a prepared co-chair proposal. The subsequent interventions show in my view a quite divided set of speakers until at the end of the call you ask for objections only about Thomas' proposal - which relied, as Avri has explained, partially at least on an incorrect reading of her prior suggestions to the list. If I were the lead of this Subgroup I would be more conservative in qualifiying the situation, in view of the transcript, the reactions and how awkwardly all happened and the corrections that are being made. In any case it is up to the CCWG to consider this Subgroup proposal (if it can be called such). And the CCWG cannot change what was agreed by the chartering orgs. regards Jorge ________________________________ Von: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> Datum: 15. Juni 2017 um 23:39:44 MESZ An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> Cc: ws2-jurisdiction <ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org>, MSSI Secretariat <mssi-secretariat@icann.org>, accountability-cross-community@icann.org <accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Betreff: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Caption Notes-Recordings-Transcript links for Jurisdiction Meeting #35 - 14 June 2017 Jorge, Thank you for your views. Your proposal was put before the group at the beginning of the call (as you requested); it did not garner substantial support. The Co-Chairs have been monitoring this Subgroup and I think their statement, as offered by Thomas, speaks for itself. A request for those opposed to the Co-Chairs' conclusion was made on the call, and we recorded four opposed. I also hope that we can return to substantive discussions now and avoid rehashing this decision or the underlying concepts yet again. Greg On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 3:32 PM, <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>> wrote: Dear Greg and all, Sorry to see that another call was lost in preempting hypothetical remedies, before even a full discussion about the issues has taken place (some of the inputs to the questionnaire have not even been presented yet - and the cases are far from having been finalised). Especially the issue of taylor-made protections against unwarranted interference would merit a real debate. But after several attempts to foreclose some quite improbable scenarios it seems that this preemptive action has succeeded, albeit in awkward circumstances. I personally feel that the approach I propose(d) -which is what we had agreed before after initial debates- would have been much more efficient in our time-management, would have followed the logical order of analyzing first issues and -being factual and objective- would have avoided this absolutely unnecessary divisiveness. Hope that we may at last return to substantive discussions soon and that the Plenary is wise enough not to close the door to considering sensible, commonly agreed solutions, if our future analysis of the issues reveals them appropriate. kind regards Jorge ________________________________ Von: MSSI Secretariat <mssi-secretariat@icann.org<mailto:mssi-secretariat@icann.org>> Datum: 15. Juni 2017 um 19:47:01 MESZ An: CCWG Accountability <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Cc: ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org<mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> <ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org<mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org>> Betreff: [CCWG-ACCT] Caption Notes-Recordings-Transcript links for Jurisdiction Meeting #35 - 14 June 2017 Hello all, The caption notes, recordings and transcripts for CCWG Accountability WS2 Jurisdiction Subgroup Meeting #35– 14 June 2017 will be available here: https://community.icann.org/x/GSDwAw A copy of the action items and raw caption notes may be found below. With kind regards, Brenda Brewer, Projects & Operations Assistant Multistakeholder Strategy & Strategic Initiatives (MSSI) Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) [cid:image001.png@01D2E5D5.73E41D50] Skype: brenda.brewer.icann Phone: 1-310-745-1107<tel:1-310-745-1107> Raw Captioning Notes Please note that these are the unofficial transcript. Official transcript will be posted 2-3 days after the call * Word Doc<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/66068505/Jurisdicton_0614IC...> * PDF<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/66068505/Jurisdiction_0614I...> Decisions: * Thomas Rickert for the CCWG-Accountability Co-Chairs, We have concluded that the Jurisdiction sub-group will take Californian jurisdiction as a base line for all its recommendations, and that the sub-team not pursue recommendations to change ICANN's jurisdiction of incorporation, location of headquarters or seek immunity for ICANN. With this decision we are recognizing that there is no possibility that there would be consensus for an immunity based concept or a change of place of incorporation. As such I would establish in the minutes of this call that we focus on the solution that gets most traction. Recognizing that this does not eliminate, as I think Avri said during last week's call, that we can discuss all issues that might arise during the deliberations. But that we actually focus on the status quo being Californian law and place of incorporation. and work on solutions that are founded on this. Action Items: * (none) Requests: * (none) _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
sorry, but this sentence was cut: "Hence your assertion that it did not "garner substantial support"... is a bit strange." Normally in the past when the groups were divided we would habe done multiple straw polls to see the level of traction... and chad come up with refined versions trying to find consensus positions. This I find awkward, especially after seeing such division amongst the speakers who came after Thomas... good evening all Jorge ________________________________ Von: Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> Datum: 15. Juni 2017 um 23:59:14 MESZ An: gregshatanipc@gmail.com <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> Cc: ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org <ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org>, mssi-secretariat@icann.org <mssi-secretariat@icann.org>, accountability-cross-community@icann.org <accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Betreff: Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] [CCWG-ACCT] Caption Notes-Recordings-Transcript links for Jurisdiction Meeting #35 - 14 June 2017 Dear Greg Thank you for your views. I'm also interested in the views of others as Avri and Segun, that seem to have good points to make and are correcting some things which were put to the group. As to my proposal: from the transcript it appears that you reported about it, but no debate took place. Hence your assertion that it did not "garner substantial support". Instead Thomas R. intervened with a prepared co-chair proposal. The subsequent interventions show in my view a quite divided set of speakers until at the end of the call you ask for objections only about Thomas' proposal - which relied, as Avri has explained, partially at least on an incorrect reading of her prior suggestions to the list. If I were the lead of this Subgroup I would be more conservative in qualifiying the situation, in view of the transcript, the reactions and how awkwardly all happened and the corrections that are being made. In any case it is up to the CCWG to consider this Subgroup proposal (if it can be called such). And the CCWG cannot change what was agreed by the chartering orgs. regards Jorge ________________________________ Von: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> Datum: 15. Juni 2017 um 23:39:44 MESZ An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> Cc: ws2-jurisdiction <ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org>, MSSI Secretariat <mssi-secretariat@icann.org>, accountability-cross-community@icann.org <accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Betreff: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Caption Notes-Recordings-Transcript links for Jurisdiction Meeting #35 - 14 June 2017 Jorge, Thank you for your views. Your proposal was put before the group at the beginning of the call (as you requested); it did not garner substantial support. The Co-Chairs have been monitoring this Subgroup and I think their statement, as offered by Thomas, speaks for itself. A request for those opposed to the Co-Chairs' conclusion was made on the call, and we recorded four opposed. I also hope that we can return to substantive discussions now and avoid rehashing this decision or the underlying concepts yet again. Greg On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 3:32 PM, <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>> wrote: Dear Greg and all, Sorry to see that another call was lost in preempting hypothetical remedies, before even a full discussion about the issues has taken place (some of the inputs to the questionnaire have not even been presented yet - and the cases are far from having been finalised). Especially the issue of taylor-made protections against unwarranted interference would merit a real debate. But after several attempts to foreclose some quite improbable scenarios it seems that this preemptive action has succeeded, albeit in awkward circumstances. I personally feel that the approach I propose(d) -which is what we had agreed before after initial debates- would have been much more efficient in our time-management, would have followed the logical order of analyzing first issues and -being factual and objective- would have avoided this absolutely unnecessary divisiveness. Hope that we may at last return to substantive discussions soon and that the Plenary is wise enough not to close the door to considering sensible, commonly agreed solutions, if our future analysis of the issues reveals them appropriate. kind regards Jorge ________________________________ Von: MSSI Secretariat <mssi-secretariat@icann.org<mailto:mssi-secretariat@icann.org>> Datum: 15. Juni 2017 um 19:47:01 MESZ An: CCWG Accountability <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Cc: ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org<mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> <ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org<mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org>> Betreff: [CCWG-ACCT] Caption Notes-Recordings-Transcript links for Jurisdiction Meeting #35 - 14 June 2017 Hello all, The caption notes, recordings and transcripts for CCWG Accountability WS2 Jurisdiction Subgroup Meeting #35– 14 June 2017 will be available here: https://community.icann.org/x/GSDwAw A copy of the action items and raw caption notes may be found below. With kind regards, Brenda Brewer, Projects & Operations Assistant Multistakeholder Strategy & Strategic Initiatives (MSSI) Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) [cid:image001.png@01D2E5D5.73E41D50] Skype: brenda.brewer.icann Phone: 1-310-745-1107<tel:1-310-745-1107> Raw Captioning Notes Please note that these are the unofficial transcript. Official transcript will be posted 2-3 days after the call * Word Doc<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/66068505/Jurisdicton_0614IC...> * PDF<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/66068505/Jurisdiction_0614I...> Decisions: * Thomas Rickert for the CCWG-Accountability Co-Chairs, We have concluded that the Jurisdiction sub-group will take Californian jurisdiction as a base line for all its recommendations, and that the sub-team not pursue recommendations to change ICANN's jurisdiction of incorporation, location of headquarters or seek immunity for ICANN. With this decision we are recognizing that there is no possibility that there would be consensus for an immunity based concept or a change of place of incorporation. As such I would establish in the minutes of this call that we focus on the solution that gets most traction. Recognizing that this does not eliminate, as I think Avri said during last week's call, that we can discuss all issues that might arise during the deliberations. But that we actually focus on the status quo being Californian law and place of incorporation. and work on solutions that are founded on this. Action Items: * (none) Requests: * (none) _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community _______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
Jorge, There was ample opportunity for participants to speak in favor of your proposal over the course of the meeting. I wanted to give those who were opposed to Thomas's proposal ample opportunity (perhaps even too ample an opportunity) to state their case and persuade the others on the call. (I suppose, to be fair, it could be stated that those opposed to Thomas's proposal supported yours.) The record reflects this opportunity. I think that the bulk of the people on the call -- those who supported Thomas's proposal -- did not feel the need to speak at length. It would be incorrect to judge the process of the call based on how many inches of transcript or minutes of the call were taken up by each side. I encourage you to shift your focus to bringing out the issues that you believe should be considered by the group, and to be as concrete and explanatory as possible. For instance, you mention something you call "unwarranted interference," but I have no idea what that means. Assuming this refers to an issue you would propose for consideration by the group, we would be much better served by focusing on that. Continuing along the same path that we have the last two weeks would just seem to waste more time away from the issues. Greg On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 5:58 PM, <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> wrote:
Dear Greg
Thank you for your views.
I'm also interested in the views of others as Avri and Segun, that seem to have good points to make and are correcting some things which were put to the group.
As to my proposal: from the transcript it appears that you reported about it, but no debate took place. Hence your assertion that it did not "garner substantial support".
Instead Thomas R. intervened with a prepared co-chair proposal. The subsequent interventions show in my view a quite divided set of speakers until at the end of the call you ask for objections only about Thomas' proposal - which relied, as Avri has explained, partially at least on an incorrect reading of her prior suggestions to the list.
If I were the lead of this Subgroup I would be more conservative in qualifiying the situation, in view of the transcript, the reactions and how awkwardly all happened and the corrections that are being made.
In any case it is up to the CCWG to consider this Subgroup proposal (if it can be called such). And the CCWG cannot change what was agreed by the chartering orgs.
regards
Jorge
________________________________
Von: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> Datum: 15. Juni 2017 um 23:39:44 MESZ An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> Cc: ws2-jurisdiction <ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org>, MSSI Secretariat < mssi-secretariat@icann.org>, accountability-cross-community@icann.org < accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Betreff: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Caption Notes-Recordings-Transcript links for Jurisdiction Meeting #35 - 14 June 2017
Jorge,
Thank you for your views. Your proposal was put before the group at the beginning of the call (as you requested); it did not garner substantial support. The Co-Chairs have been monitoring this Subgroup and I think their statement, as offered by Thomas, speaks for itself. A request for those opposed to the Co-Chairs' conclusion was made on the call, and we recorded four opposed.
I also hope that we can return to substantive discussions now and avoid rehashing this decision or the underlying concepts yet again.
Greg
On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 3:32 PM, <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto: Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>> wrote: Dear Greg and all,
Sorry to see that another call was lost in preempting hypothetical remedies, before even a full discussion about the issues has taken place (some of the inputs to the questionnaire have not even been presented yet - and the cases are far from having been finalised).
Especially the issue of taylor-made protections against unwarranted interference would merit a real debate.
But after several attempts to foreclose some quite improbable scenarios it seems that this preemptive action has succeeded, albeit in awkward circumstances.
I personally feel that the approach I propose(d) -which is what we had agreed before after initial debates- would have been much more efficient in our time-management, would have followed the logical order of analyzing first issues and -being factual and objective- would have avoided this absolutely unnecessary divisiveness.
Hope that we may at last return to substantive discussions soon and that the Plenary is wise enough not to close the door to considering sensible, commonly agreed solutions, if our future analysis of the issues reveals them appropriate.
kind regards
Jorge
________________________________
Von: MSSI Secretariat <mssi-secretariat@icann.org<mailto: mssi-secretariat@icann.org>> Datum: 15. Juni 2017 um 19:47:01 MESZ An: CCWG Accountability <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto: accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Cc: ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org<mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> < ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org<mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org>> Betreff: [CCWG-ACCT] Caption Notes-Recordings-Transcript links for Jurisdiction Meeting #35 - 14 June 2017
Hello all,
The caption notes, recordings and transcripts for CCWG Accountability WS2 Jurisdiction Subgroup Meeting #35– 14 June 2017 will be available here: https://community.icann.org/x/GSDwAw
A copy of the action items and raw caption notes may be found below.
With kind regards, Brenda Brewer, Projects & Operations Assistant Multistakeholder Strategy & Strategic Initiatives (MSSI) Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) [cid:image001.png@01D2E5D5.73E41D50] Skype: brenda.brewer.icann Phone: 1-310-745-1107<tel:1-310-745-1107>
Raw Captioning Notes Please note that these are the unofficial transcript. Official transcript will be posted 2-3 days after the call
* Word Doc<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/ 66068505/Jurisdicton_0614ICANN1300UTC.RTF?version=1&modificationDate= 1497462625000&api=v2> * PDF<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/ 66068505/Jurisdiction_0614ICANN1300UTC.pdf?version=1&modificationDate= 1497462637000&api=v2>
Decisions:
* Thomas Rickert for the CCWG-Accountability Co-Chairs, We have concluded that the Jurisdiction sub-group will take Californian jurisdiction as a base line for all its recommendations, and that the sub-team not pursue recommendations to change ICANN's jurisdiction of incorporation, location of headquarters or seek immunity for ICANN. With this decision we are recognizing that there is no possibility that there would be consensus for an immunity based concept or a change of place of incorporation. As such I would establish in the minutes of this call that we focus on the solution that gets most traction. Recognizing that this does not eliminate, as I think Avri said during last week's call, that we can discuss all issues that might arise during the deliberations. But that we actually focus on the status quo being Californian law and place of incorporation. and work on solutions that are founded on this.
Action Items:
* (none)
Requests:
* (none)
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Acc ountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Dear Greg I take issue with this sided approach, sorry to say. Instead of trying to find a consensus approach or even giving the same treatment to options with fairly similar support by speakers silence in the call is now construed as lack of support regarding my proposal and at the same time a silent majority is construed as having silently supported the only option that was really subject to a straw poll - which contrary to our customs was never announced.... I can understand this is difficult for you as rapporteur, but this process and approach lacks balance. As to my substantive contributions (and I see here again a biais in your interrogative mode) I have made plenty of them... That is evident... Unwarranted interference: sanctions is one of them, the group was starting to discuss... I'll beg you to take a deep breath before this divisiveness reaches too far. The last two calls have been wasted because of the insistence to foreclose some hypothetical remedies - and that insistence certainly did not came from me... kind regards Jorge ________________________________ Von: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> Datum: 16. Juni 2017 um 00:26:06 MESZ An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> Cc: accountability-cross-community@icann.org <accountability-cross-community@icann.org>, MSSI Secretariat <mssi-secretariat@icann.org>, ws2-jurisdiction <ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> Betreff: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Caption Notes-Recordings-Transcript links for Jurisdiction Meeting #35 - 14 June 2017 Jorge, There was ample opportunity for participants to speak in favor of your proposal over the course of the meeting. I wanted to give those who were opposed to Thomas's proposal ample opportunity (perhaps even too ample an opportunity) to state their case and persuade the others on the call. (I suppose, to be fair, it could be stated that those opposed to Thomas's proposal supported yours.) The record reflects this opportunity. I think that the bulk of the people on the call -- those who supported Thomas's proposal -- did not feel the need to speak at length. It would be incorrect to judge the process of the call based on how many inches of transcript or minutes of the call were taken up by each side. I encourage you to shift your focus to bringing out the issues that you believe should be considered by the group, and to be as concrete and explanatory as possible. For instance, you mention something you call "unwarranted interference," but I have no idea what that means. Assuming this refers to an issue you would propose for consideration by the group, we would be much better served by focusing on that. Continuing along the same path that we have the last two weeks would just seem to waste more time away from the issues. Greg On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 5:58 PM, <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>> wrote: Dear Greg Thank you for your views. I'm also interested in the views of others as Avri and Segun, that seem to have good points to make and are correcting some things which were put to the group. As to my proposal: from the transcript it appears that you reported about it, but no debate took place. Hence your assertion that it did not "garner substantial support". Instead Thomas R. intervened with a prepared co-chair proposal. The subsequent interventions show in my view a quite divided set of speakers until at the end of the call you ask for objections only about Thomas' proposal - which relied, as Avri has explained, partially at least on an incorrect reading of her prior suggestions to the list. If I were the lead of this Subgroup I would be more conservative in qualifiying the situation, in view of the transcript, the reactions and how awkwardly all happened and the corrections that are being made. In any case it is up to the CCWG to consider this Subgroup proposal (if it can be called such). And the CCWG cannot change what was agreed by the chartering orgs. regards Jorge ________________________________ Von: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> Datum: 15. Juni 2017 um 23:39:44 MESZ An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>> Cc: ws2-jurisdiction <ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org<mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org>>, MSSI Secretariat <mssi-secretariat@icann.org<mailto:mssi-secretariat@icann.org>>, accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Betreff: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Caption Notes-Recordings-Transcript links for Jurisdiction Meeting #35 - 14 June 2017 Jorge, Thank you for your views. Your proposal was put before the group at the beginning of the call (as you requested); it did not garner substantial support. The Co-Chairs have been monitoring this Subgroup and I think their statement, as offered by Thomas, speaks for itself. A request for those opposed to the Co-Chairs' conclusion was made on the call, and we recorded four opposed. I also hope that we can return to substantive discussions now and avoid rehashing this decision or the underlying concepts yet again. Greg On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 3:32 PM, <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>> wrote: Dear Greg and all, Sorry to see that another call was lost in preempting hypothetical remedies, before even a full discussion about the issues has taken place (some of the inputs to the questionnaire have not even been presented yet - and the cases are far from having been finalised). Especially the issue of taylor-made protections against unwarranted interference would merit a real debate. But after several attempts to foreclose some quite improbable scenarios it seems that this preemptive action has succeeded, albeit in awkward circumstances. I personally feel that the approach I propose(d) -which is what we had agreed before after initial debates- would have been much more efficient in our time-management, would have followed the logical order of analyzing first issues and -being factual and objective- would have avoided this absolutely unnecessary divisiveness. Hope that we may at last return to substantive discussions soon and that the Plenary is wise enough not to close the door to considering sensible, commonly agreed solutions, if our future analysis of the issues reveals them appropriate. kind regards Jorge ________________________________ Von: MSSI Secretariat <mssi-secretariat@icann.org<mailto:mssi-secretariat@icann.org><mailto:mssi-secretariat@icann.org<mailto:mssi-secretariat@icann.org>>> Datum: 15. Juni 2017 um 19:47:01 MESZ An: CCWG Accountability <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>>> Cc: ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org<mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org><mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org<mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org>> <ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org<mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org><mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org<mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org>>> Betreff: [CCWG-ACCT] Caption Notes-Recordings-Transcript links for Jurisdiction Meeting #35 - 14 June 2017 Hello all, The caption notes, recordings and transcripts for CCWG Accountability WS2 Jurisdiction Subgroup Meeting #35– 14 June 2017 will be available here: https://community.icann.org/x/GSDwAw A copy of the action items and raw caption notes may be found below. With kind regards, Brenda Brewer, Projects & Operations Assistant Multistakeholder Strategy & Strategic Initiatives (MSSI) Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) [cid:image001.png@01D2E5D5.73E41D50] Skype: brenda.brewer.icann Phone: 1-310-745-1107<tel:1-310-745-1107><tel:1-310-745-1107<tel:1-310-745-1107>> Raw Captioning Notes Please note that these are the unofficial transcript. Official transcript will be posted 2-3 days after the call * Word Doc<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/66068505/Jurisdicton_0614IC...> * PDF<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/66068505/Jurisdiction_0614I...> Decisions: * Thomas Rickert for the CCWG-Accountability Co-Chairs, We have concluded that the Jurisdiction sub-group will take Californian jurisdiction as a base line for all its recommendations, and that the sub-team not pursue recommendations to change ICANN's jurisdiction of incorporation, location of headquarters or seek immunity for ICANN. With this decision we are recognizing that there is no possibility that there would be consensus for an immunity based concept or a change of place of incorporation. As such I would establish in the minutes of this call that we focus on the solution that gets most traction. Recognizing that this does not eliminate, as I think Avri said during last week's call, that we can discuss all issues that might arise during the deliberations. But that we actually focus on the status quo being Californian law and place of incorporation. and work on solutions that are founded on this. Action Items: * (none) Requests: * (none) _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org><mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
participants (2)
-
Greg Shatan -
Jorge.Cancio＠bakom.admin.ch