Staying Focused in the Jurisdiction Subgroup
All, We are getting ahead of ourselves. Meanwhile, we're not doing the things we should be doing, which will only slow us down in the end. In particular, the discussions of possible "remedies", such as "immunity" or alternative structures for ICANN are, at best, premature, and need to be set aside. We need to focus the subgroup on problems first, consistent with our work plan. Problems will lead to remedies, just as diagnosis leads to treatment. Specifically, the subgroup needs to concentrate on taking suggestions for possible problems arising from "ICANN's jurisdiction" from participants, really discussing these suggestions in the subgroup, and determining as a subgroup whether these suggestions are in fact problems that should be included in our analysis. I'm specifically using "problems" and not "issues", based on a very good suggestion from Phil Corwin: "*Rather than issues, I believe we should be focus on on demonstrable problems. Issues can just consists of debating points absent real world evidence of something broken or substantially sub-optimal requiring a remedy.*" "Problems" conveys much better that we are look for concrete, specific items arising from "ICANN's jurisdiction," particularly with regard to the actual operation of policies and accountability mechanisms (as stated in Annex 12). After that is done, and the subgroup has an agreed list of problems, we will then turn our focus to considering specific possible remedies for specific problems. Discussions of remedies should be held until that time. Discussing remedies now will only delay the proper discussion of remedies by the subgroup. This has also distracted us from resolving issues with the questionnaire. On Tuesday, I sent out a follow-up email on the questionnaire under the Subject "Focus, Working Method and Revisions to Proposed Questions: RESPONSE REQUESTED." So far, there have been very few responses. Please read and respond to that email. We need to see if there is a compromise regarding Question 4 that will garner broad support in the subgroup and satisfy most (if not all) objections raised in the subgroup. Thank you. Greg
Grec, Tks for your suggestions Without getting involved in semantic delima of whether we speak about " Issues " or " Problems" I take your sentence saying Quote *I'm specifically using "problems" and not "issues", based on a very good suggestion from Phil Corwin: "Rather than issues, I believe we should be focus on demonstrable problems. Issues can just consists of debating points absent real world evidence of something broken or substantially sub-optimal requiring a remedy." "Problems" conveys much better that we are look for concrete, specific items arising from "ICANN's jurisdiction," particularly with regard to the actual operation of policies and accountability mechanisms (as stated in Annex 12)* Unquote Please then make a shopping lists of the Problems .I have provided you with 22 problems / questions extracted from the earlier discussions. They are not drafted by me . Then waiting to receive the list of problems that you wish to discuss. This the fourth times that we change our agenda and sechedule of work . I hope you would succeed in collecting the problems that people talked since the first meeting . Regards Kavouss 2016-12-30 8:13 GMT+01:00 Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com>:
All,
We are getting ahead of ourselves. Meanwhile, we're not doing the things we should be doing, which will only slow us down in the end.
In particular, the discussions of possible "remedies", such as "immunity" or alternative structures for ICANN are, at best, premature, and need to be set aside. We need to focus the subgroup on problems first, consistent with our work plan. Problems will lead to remedies, just as diagnosis leads to treatment.
Specifically, the subgroup needs to concentrate on taking suggestions for possible problems arising from "ICANN's jurisdiction" from participants, really discussing these suggestions in the subgroup, and determining as a subgroup whether these suggestions are in fact problems that should be included in our analysis.
I'm specifically using "problems" and not "issues", based on a very good suggestion from Phil Corwin: "*Rather than issues, I believe we should be focus on on demonstrable problems. Issues can just consists of debating points absent real world evidence of something broken or substantially sub-optimal requiring a remedy.*" "Problems" conveys much better that we are look for concrete, specific items arising from "ICANN's jurisdiction," particularly with regard to the actual operation of policies and accountability mechanisms (as stated in Annex 12).
After that is done, and the subgroup has an agreed list of problems, we will then turn our focus to considering specific possible remedies for specific problems. Discussions of remedies should be held until that time. Discussing remedies now will only delay the proper discussion of remedies by the subgroup.
This has also distracted us from resolving issues with the questionnaire. On Tuesday, I sent out a follow-up email on the questionnaire under the Subject "Focus, Working Method and Revisions to Proposed Questions: RESPONSE REQUESTED." So far, there have been very few responses. Please read and respond to that email. We need to see if there is a compromise regarding Question 4 that will garner broad support in the subgroup and satisfy most (if not all) objections raised in the subgroup.
Thank you.
Greg
_______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
Dear Greg I support your approach (let's identify potential problems first and then have a look at possible remedies). To overcome this impasse I feel a generous/flecible/open position to question 4 would help, where Phil's wording seemed to garner enough traction. kind regards and happy New Year! Jorge ________________________________ Von: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> Datum: 30. Dezember 2016 um 08:14:19 MEZ An: ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org <ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> Betreff: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Staying Focused in the Jurisdiction Subgroup All, We are getting ahead of ourselves. Meanwhile, we're not doing the things we should be doing, which will only slow us down in the end. In particular, the discussions of possible "remedies", such as "immunity" or alternative structures for ICANN are, at best, premature, and need to be set aside. We need to focus the subgroup on problems first, consistent with our work plan. Problems will lead to remedies, just as diagnosis leads to treatment. Specifically, the subgroup needs to concentrate on taking suggestions for possible problems arising from "ICANN's jurisdiction" from participants, really discussing these suggestions in the subgroup, and determining as a subgroup whether these suggestions are in fact problems that should be included in our analysis. I'm specifically using "problems" and not "issues", based on a very good suggestion from Phil Corwin: "Rather than issues, I believe we should be focus on on demonstrable problems. Issues can just consists of debating points absent real world evidence of something broken or substantially sub-optimal requiring a remedy." "Problems" conveys much better that we are look for concrete, specific items arising from "ICANN's jurisdiction," particularly with regard to the actual operation of policies and accountability mechanisms (as stated in Annex 12). After that is done, and the subgroup has an agreed list of problems, we will then turn our focus to considering specific possible remedies for specific problems. Discussions of remedies should be held until that time. Discussing remedies now will only delay the proper discussion of remedies by the subgroup. This has also distracted us from resolving issues with the questionnaire. On Tuesday, I sent out a follow-up email on the questionnaire under the Subject "Focus, Working Method and Revisions to Proposed Questions: RESPONSE REQUESTED." So far, there have been very few responses. Please read and respond to that email. We need to see if there is a compromise regarding Question 4 that will garner broad support in the subgroup and satisfy most (if not all) objections raised in the subgroup. Thank you. Greg
Dear Jorge, I think you have immediately converted the issue of finding problem into the Draft Q4 which is only one face of the problem. There are other problems. I think questions 1to be modified to make it general and not selective and Q3 must be totally suppressed for the reasons I have given. For Q 4 may be we need to finalize alternative 1,BUT these are the ending to identify problems. I have extracted 22 questions dated 13 December FROM THE EXCHANGE OF E-MAILS AND THOSE ARE AMONG THE PROBLEMS I once again strongly oppose to send out Question 3 and reiterate the modification to Q1 and finding a possible alternative for Q4 4. Regards Kavouss 2016-12-30 12:09 GMT+01:00 <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>:
Dear Greg
I support your approach (let's identify potential problems first and then have a look at possible remedies).
To overcome this impasse I feel a generous/flecible/open position to question 4 would help, where Phil's wording seemed to garner enough traction.
kind regards and happy New Year!
Jorge
________________________________
Von: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> Datum: 30. Dezember 2016 um 08:14:19 MEZ An: ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org <ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> Betreff: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Staying Focused in the Jurisdiction Subgroup
All,
We are getting ahead of ourselves. Meanwhile, we're not doing the things we should be doing, which will only slow us down in the end.
In particular, the discussions of possible "remedies", such as "immunity" or alternative structures for ICANN are, at best, premature, and need to be set aside. We need to focus the subgroup on problems first, consistent with our work plan. Problems will lead to remedies, just as diagnosis leads to treatment.
Specifically, the subgroup needs to concentrate on taking suggestions for possible problems arising from "ICANN's jurisdiction" from participants, really discussing these suggestions in the subgroup, and determining as a subgroup whether these suggestions are in fact problems that should be included in our analysis.
I'm specifically using "problems" and not "issues", based on a very good suggestion from Phil Corwin: "Rather than issues, I believe we should be focus on on demonstrable problems. Issues can just consists of debating points absent real world evidence of something broken or substantially sub-optimal requiring a remedy." "Problems" conveys much better that we are look for concrete, specific items arising from "ICANN's jurisdiction," particularly with regard to the actual operation of policies and accountability mechanisms (as stated in Annex 12).
After that is done, and the subgroup has an agreed list of problems, we will then turn our focus to considering specific possible remedies for specific problems. Discussions of remedies should be held until that time. Discussing remedies now will only delay the proper discussion of remedies by the subgroup.
This has also distracted us from resolving issues with the questionnaire. On Tuesday, I sent out a follow-up email on the questionnaire under the Subject "Focus, Working Method and Revisions to Proposed Questions: RESPONSE REQUESTED." So far, there have been very few responses. Please read and respond to that email. We need to see if there is a compromise regarding Question 4 that will garner broad support in the subgroup and satisfy most (if not all) objections raised in the subgroup.
Thank you.
Greg
_______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
+1. The insistence in focusing on an issue of interest to a small minority is delaying us greatly. -- Paul Rosenzweig Sent from myMail app for Android Friday, 30 December 2016, 02:13AM -05:00 from Greg Shatan gregshatanipc@gmail.com :
All,
We are getting ahead of ourselves. Meanwhile, we're not doing the things we should be doing, which will only slow us down in the end.
In particular, the discussions of possible "remedies", such as "immunity" or alternative structures for ICANN are, at best, premature, and need to be set aside. We need to focus the subgroup on problems first, consistent with our work plan. Problems will lead to remedies, just as diagnosis leads to treatment.
Specifically, the subgroup needs to concentrate on taking suggestions for possible problems arising from "ICANN's jurisdiction" from participants, really discussing these suggestions in the subgroup, and determining as a subgroup whether these suggestions are in fact problems that should be included in our analysis.
I'm specifically using "problems" and not "issues", based on a very good suggestion from Phil Corwin: " Rather than issues, I believe we should be focus on on demonstrable problems. Issues can just consists of debating points absent real world evidence of something broken or substantially sub-optimal requiring a remedy. " "Problems" conveys much better that we are look for concrete, specific items arising from "ICANN's jurisdiction," particularly with regard to the actual operation of policies and accountability mechanisms (as stated in Annex 12).
After that is done, and the subgroup has an agreed list of problems, we will then turn our focus to considering specific possible remedies for specific problems. Discussions of remedies should be held until that time. Discussing remedies now will only delay the proper discussion of remedies by the subgroup.
This has also distracted us from resolving issues with the questionnaire. On Tuesday, I sent out a follow-up email on the questionnaire under the Subject " Focus, Working Method and Revisions to Proposed Questions: RESPONSE REQUESTED. " So far, there have been very few responses. Please read and respond to that email. We need to see if there is a compromise regarding Question 4 that will garner broad support in the subgroup and satisfy most (if not all) objections raised in the subgroup.
Thank you.
Greg
_______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
All a matter of perspective On 30-Dec-16 11:49, Paul Rosenzweig wrote:
+1. The insistence in focusing on an issue of interest to a small minority is delaying us greatly.
I see the sharp focus by those who want to prevent particular solutions from even seeming possible, as motivating a drive to keep us from asking necessary questions, as the actual cause of delay. One side berates another to avoid solutionism while at the same time fighting a possible solution it cannot abide. avri --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
Dear ALL No one wants to prevent particular solutions. We all looking for a workable solution but not a unilateral solution No one motivating a drive to keep you from asking necessary questions, We also wants to raise proper questions and not business type question but a general questions which covers the problem of every body. those accusing us did not have any problem at all as they are covered by the existing Jurisdiction BUT OTHER PEOPLE HAVE PROBLEMS Pls allow others to raise their points .THERE IS NO ROOM FOR REPRESSUION . Pls kindly do not accuse people to delay . THE statement " * One side berates another to avoid solutionism while at the same time fighting a possible solution it cannot abide*". IS UNFOUNDED . IRELEVANT AND ALLEGATION . This is a global multistakeholder process and every body has the right to raise it point .But you do not allow them by openly accuse them delaying the process . Those who stop sending Q4 are delaying the process. Pls kindly understand us Regards Have nice evening Kavouss 2016-12-30 18:28 GMT+01:00 avri doria <avri@acm.org>:
All a matter of perspective
On 30-Dec-16 11:49, Paul Rosenzweig wrote:
+1. The insistence in focusing on an issue of interest to a small minority is delaying us greatly.
I see the sharp focus by those who want to prevent particular solutions from even seeming possible, as motivating a drive to keep us from asking necessary questions, as the actual cause of delay.
One side berates another to avoid solutionism while at the same time fighting a possible solution it cannot abide.
avri
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
_______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
Dear Kavouss, My argument was in favor of including question 4. That is the question I felt was being suppressed because I believe people were afraid that the responses might point to a solution space they would prefer to avoid. Apologies for not being able to make that sufficiently clear. Cheers, avri On 30-Dec-16 16:17, Kavouss Arasteh wrote:
Dear ALL No one wants to prevent particular solutions. We all looking for a workable solution but not a unilateral solution No one motivating a drive to keep you from asking necessary questions, We also wants to raise proper questions and not business type question but a general questions which covers the problem of every body. those accusing us did not have any problem at all as they are covered by the existing Jurisdiction BUT OTHER PEOPLE HAVE PROBLEMS Pls allow others to raise their points .THERE IS NO ROOM FOR REPRESSUION . Pls kindly do not accuse people to delay . THE statement "/One side berates another to avoid solutionism while at the same time fighting a possible solution it cannot abide/". IS UNFOUNDED . IRELEVANT AND ALLEGATION . This is a global multistakeholder process and every body has the right to raise it point .But you do not allow them by openly accuse them delaying the process . Those who stop sending Q4 are delaying the process. Pls kindly understand us Regards Have nice evening Kavouss
2016-12-30 18:28 GMT+01:00 avri doria <avri@acm.org <mailto:avri@acm.org>>:
All a matter of perspective
On 30-Dec-16 11:49, Paul Rosenzweig wrote: > +1. The insistence in focusing on an issue of interest to a small > minority is delaying us greatly.
I see the sharp focus by those who want to prevent particular solutions from even seeming possible, as motivating a drive to keep us from asking necessary questions, as the actual cause of delay.
One side berates another to avoid solutionism while at the same time fighting a possible solution it cannot abide.
avri
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus <https://www.avast.com/antivirus>
_______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org <mailto:Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction>
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
In response to this statement: I see the sharp focus by those who want to prevent particular solutions from even seeming possible, as motivating a drive to keep us from asking necessary questions Respectfully, there can be no "particular solutions" until we have identified and documented actual problems, as in the absence of such problems proposed "solutions" are little more than changes advocated for their own sake or to further an unrelated agenda. By all means let's get the questions out asap so that we can get on with the work of analyzing responses. But let's ask for -- and even more important, only act upon -- fact-based responses and not mere opinions and undocumented assertions. At this point I have lost track of where the formulation of the questions stands. More than a week ago I suggested a formulation of question 4 that seemed to receive some substantial support within the subgroup, but I am not sure if it is still under consideration. It would be appreciated if we could all be brought up to date on the current state of play in furtherance of the goal of resolving the questions on our call this Thursday. Thank you. Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597/Direct 202-559-8750/Fax 202-255-6172/Cell Twitter: @VlawDC "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey -----Original Message----- From: ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of avri doria Sent: Friday, December 30, 2016 12:29 PM To: ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org Subject: Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Staying Focused in the Jurisdiction Subgroup All a matter of perspective On 30-Dec-16 11:49, Paul Rosenzweig wrote:
+1. The insistence in focusing on an issue of interest to a small minority is delaying us greatly.
I see the sharp focus by those who want to prevent particular solutions from even seeming possible, as motivating a drive to keep us from asking necessary questions, as the actual cause of delay. One side berates another to avoid solutionism while at the same time fighting a possible solution it cannot abide. avri --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus _______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction ----- No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2016.0.7924 / Virus Database: 4739/13633 - Release Date: 12/22/16 Internal Virus Database is out of date.
On 02-Jan-17 17:56, Phil Corwin wrote:
In response to this statement: I see the sharp focus by those who want to prevent particular solutions from even seeming possible, as motivating a drive to keep us from asking necessary questions
Respectfully, there can be no "particular solutions" until we have identified and documented actual problems, as in the absence of such problems proposed "solutions" are little more than changes advocated for their own sake or to further an unrelated agenda.
With equal respect, I agree this should not be the case. But the insistence that no question that could uncover a fact that might lead to consideration of other jurisdictions is to be allowed, argues otherwise. avri --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
All, Based on several questions and other comments from participants, I thought it would be helpful to reiterate where we stand on the Questionnaire, including both the formulation and inclusion of questions. I collected the suggested alternatives and other comments from the subgroup into a document, which I sent to subgroup on December 30. I'm now putting a revised version of that document in Google drive, with a third column for subgroup comments (and I've highlighted the additions or deletions (*^*) in red). I'm also sending this new version attached to this email. Here is the Google doc link: https://docs.google.com/ document/d/1XHNwFUr2wA-w65ynd6YjuDyuBjx0V9PAxt-81z3WTEA/edit?usp=sharing I'll add the existing comments to the Google doc. If you have made comments already, please feel free to add them yourself. To try and focus the discussion, I provided a "strawman" with one possible set of answers for dealing with the alternatives: Preamble -- Use Alternative 1. Question 1 -- Use Alternative 1. Question 2 -- No change Question 3 -- No change. Question 4 -- Use Alternative 1. One clarification regarding Question 3: This question is asking the respondent (X) to refer us to an existing description prepared by a third party (Y), describing Y's relevant experience with "ICANN's jurisdiction." The question asks X to provide copies of, or links to, Y's document describing Y's experience -- nothing more. It does not ask X to say anything about Y's experience. We are only interested in what Y has to say (in Y's description). Phil, your proposal on Question 4 is Alternative 1. Finally, this does not presume that Question 4 will (or won't) be part of the questionnaire. If we can find a version of Question 4 that gets broad support (with little or no objection) in the subgroup, then Question 4 will be included. The current situation is essentially one of "Divergence" (or "No Consensus") where no outcome has broad support, and we are relatively evenly divided (keeping in mind the Charter's admonition that "polls are not votes"). It would be preferable if we could move from this position to a position where some version of Question 4 gets broad support (or where dropping or postponing Question 4 gets broad support); that would allow the subgroup to come to a decision. I know that there are some in the group who would like a simple majority (based on the poll results) to control the decision, or who would like to operate on a basis other than one where each participant has an equal say. However, the consensus-driven model is the cornerstone of working group methodology. Under that model "no consensus" would not support the Working Group taking any action. Since this is a subgroup and not a Working Group, the situation is somewhat different, in that we are not intended to be the final decision-maker. So, when we bring the Questionnaire back to the Plenary, we could advise them (as we did the last time) of the status of Question 4 and have the plenary decide whether or not Question 4 should be sent out. Of course, the Plenary would need to be brought up to speed on the situation and on the various positions taken by participants in the subgroup, so that the Plenary could make an informed decision. While this is possible, I don't believe it's preferable. What's preferable is to see if we can all (or almost all) get behind a particular decision within the subgroup. To that end, please look at Question 4 and consider the alternatives. Keep in mind that, whatever the result on Question 4, it does not define the scope of the subgroup or the limits of inquiry within the Subgroup. It only relates to what information we will solicit from non-participants at this time. This should not be seen as emblematic of a decision on larger issues. This is only about asking a question, it is not about how we treat certain possible solutions to problems that are identified in the group or through the Questionnaire. Treating this relatively minor issue in this manner makes it much harder for participants to have the necessary flexibility to compromise and reach consensus. Freud said "Sometimes a cigar is only a cigar." To paraphrase, "Sometimes a question is only a question." Let's all look at the question of Question 4 only for what it is. Greg
But the insistence that no question that could uncover a fact that might lead to consideration of other jurisdictions is to be allowed, argues otherwise. <<
I am all in favor of questions that aim to develop relevant documented facts rather than unsubstantiated opinions, as only the former can identify actual problems possibly requiring responsive solutions. Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597/Direct 202-559-8750/Fax 202-255-6172/Cell Twitter: @VlawDC "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey -----Original Message----- From: ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of avri doria Sent: Monday, January 02, 2017 6:19 PM To: ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org Subject: Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Staying Focused in the Jurisdiction Subgroup On 02-Jan-17 17:56, Phil Corwin wrote:
In response to this statement: I see the sharp focus by those who want to prevent particular solutions from even seeming possible, as motivating a drive to keep us from asking necessary questions
Respectfully, there can be no "particular solutions" until we have identified and documented actual problems, as in the absence of such problems proposed "solutions" are little more than changes advocated for their own sake or to further an unrelated agenda.
With equal respect, I agree this should not be the case. But the insistence that no question that could uncover a fact that might lead to consideration of other jurisdictions is to be allowed, argues otherwise. avri --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus _______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction ----- No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2016.0.7924 / Virus Database: 4739/13633 - Release Date: 12/22/16 Internal Virus Database is out of date.
Agree Greg and Paul. On 30/12/2016 16:49, Paul Rosenzweig wrote:
+1. The insistence in focusing on an issue of interest to a small minority is delaying us greatly.
-- Paul Rosenzweig Sent from myMail app for Android
Friday, 30 December 2016, 02:13AM -05:00 from Greg Shatan gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>:
All,
We are getting ahead of ourselves. Meanwhile, we're not doing the things we should be doing, which will only slow us down in the end.
In particular, the discussions of possible "remedies", such as "immunity" or alternative structures for ICANN are, at best, premature, and need to be set aside. We need to focus the subgroup on problems first, consistent with our work plan. Problems will lead to remedies, just as diagnosis leads to treatment.
Specifically, the subgroup needs to concentrate on taking suggestions for possible problems arising from "ICANN's jurisdiction" from participants, really discussing these suggestions in the subgroup, and determining as a subgroup whether these suggestions are in fact problems that should be included in our analysis.
I'm specifically using "problems" and not "issues", based on a very good suggestion from Phil Corwin: "/Rather than issues, I believe we should be focus on on demonstrable problems. Issues can just consists of debating points absent real world evidence of something broken or substantially sub-optimal requiring a remedy./" "Problems" conveys much better that we are look for concrete, specific items arising from "ICANN's jurisdiction," particularly with regard to the actual operation of policies and accountability mechanisms (as stated in Annex 12).
After that is done, and the subgroup has an agreed list of problems, we will then turn our focus to considering specific possible remedies for specific problems. Discussions of remedies should be held until that time. Discussing remedies now will only delay the proper discussion of remedies by the subgroup.
This has also distracted us from resolving issues with the questionnaire. On Tuesday, I sent out a follow-up email on the questionnaire under the Subject "Focus, Working Method and Revisions to Proposed Questions: RESPONSE REQUESTED." So far, there have been very few responses. Please read and respond to that email. We need to see if there is a compromise regarding Question 4 that will garner broad support in the subgroup and satisfy most (if not all) objections raised in the subgroup.
Thank you.
Greg
_______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org </compose?To=Ws2%2djurisdiction@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
_______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
-- ------------ Matthew Shears Global Internet Policy and Human Rights Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT) + 44 771 2472987
participants (7)
-
avri doria -
Greg Shatan -
Jorge.Cancio＠bakom.admin.ch -
Kavouss Arasteh -
matthew shears -
Paul Rosenzweig -
Phil Corwin