Mandate and Scope of Jurisdiction Subgroup will be on Tuesday's Agenda
All, I wanted to provide advance notice that we will pick up the discussion of the Subgroup's Mandate and Scope on Tuesday's call, with the goal of settling the issue over this call and the next. After all, we need to know what our mandate is in order to know if we ar fulfilling it. Some notes: 1. It's not up to the Subgroup to define the Subgroup's mandate and Scope. This has been done in the foundational documents -- Charter. WS 1 Report and Transition Bylaw. What we need to do is clarify our understanding of that mandate and Scope. 2. As such, the foundational documents need to form both the basis and the boundary of any such clarification or proposal for clarification. These documents were excerpted in my "straw man" mandate document sent around in the last few weeks. 3. Mandate and Scope (defined in these documents) need to be distinguished from potential issues participants might raise. Such issues, by and large, are not mentioned in the foundational documents. 4. The Mandate and Scope will be used to determine if any potential issue is "in scope". 5. Discussions of the issue on the list in advance of the call will be most helpful, since the call is only an hour. 6. While some have said we have gone in circles on this issue, or avoided resolving it. The goal here and now is to avoid that fate, whatever the outcome might be. Finally, I request broad participation on this issue, even if you have given up on this subject of discussion. Thank you. Greg
Dear Greg, I have a calendar invite for Thursday (not Tuesday). In any case, either Tuesday or Thursday I need to apologize because I'll be tied in meetings in Tallinn (Eurodig and EU). As to the mandate and scope: please note my position that we need to stick to the mandate given to the CCWG ws2 by the chartering organizations. The decision whether something is in or out of scope should be based on that mandate, should be considered in light of the specific facts of the case, and should be decided prima facie by the CCWG plenary... The Subgroup may reach ex-post i.e. case by case its own understanding v-a-v a given case where there would be a question of in/out scope, but I don't think we should lose time on developing an ex-ante position of the Subgroup in general terms. kind regards Jorge ________________________________ Von: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> Datum: 4. Juni 2017 um 23:40:05 MESZ An: ws2-jurisdiction <ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> Betreff: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Mandate and Scope of Jurisdiction Subgroup will be on Tuesday's Agenda All, I wanted to provide advance notice that we will pick up the discussion of the Subgroup's Mandate and Scope on Tuesday's call, with the goal of settling the issue over this call and the next. After all, we need to know what our mandate is in order to know if we ar fulfilling it. Some notes: 1. It's not up to the Subgroup to define the Subgroup's mandate and Scope. This has been done in the foundational documents -- Charter. WS 1 Report and Transition Bylaw. What we need to do is clarify our understanding of that mandate and Scope. 2. As such, the foundational documents need to form both the basis and the boundary of any such clarification or proposal for clarification. These documents were excerpted in my "straw man" mandate document sent around in the last few weeks. 3. Mandate and Scope (defined in these documents) need to be distinguished from potential issues participants might raise. Such issues, by and large, are not mentioned in the foundational documents. 4. The Mandate and Scope will be used to determine if any potential issue is "in scope". 5. Discussions of the issue on the list in advance of the call will be most helpful, since the call is only an hour. 6. While some have said we have gone in circles on this issue, or avoided resolving it. The goal here and now is to avoid that fate, whatever the outcome might be. Finally, I request broad participation on this issue, even if you have given up on this subject of discussion. Thank you. Greg
Dear Greg, In the last call , you undertook to produce a document addressing OFAC. This fundamental and crucial . Pls kindly refrain to provide your personal views ; which has been always respected as the views of individual and not the rapporteur, I am not convinced with the views that you and one of CCWG members provided few months ago. ICANN must be away from any political motivation. Domain name is Natural and mankind resources and does not belong to any state and must be used neutrally, efficiently, effectively and economivcal without any discrimination and any political motivation. If that issue is not appropriately addressed we failed to fulfill our responsibility . Blocking or removing a domain name is not admitted under any circumstances. Regards Kavouss 2017-06-05 8:41 GMT+02:00 <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>:
Dear Greg,
I have a calendar invite for Thursday (not Tuesday).
In any case, either Tuesday or Thursday I need to apologize because I'll be tied in meetings in Tallinn (Eurodig and EU).
As to the mandate and scope: please note my position that we need to stick to the mandate given to the CCWG ws2 by the chartering organizations.
The decision whether something is in or out of scope should be based on that mandate, should be considered in light of the specific facts of the case, and should be decided prima facie by the CCWG plenary...
The Subgroup may reach ex-post i.e. case by case its own understanding v-a-v a given case where there would be a question of in/out scope, but I don't think we should lose time on developing an ex-ante position of the Subgroup in general terms.
kind regards
Jorge
________________________________
Von: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> Datum: 4. Juni 2017 um 23:40:05 MESZ An: ws2-jurisdiction <ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> Betreff: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Mandate and Scope of Jurisdiction Subgroup will be on Tuesday's Agenda
All,
I wanted to provide advance notice that we will pick up the discussion of the Subgroup's Mandate and Scope on Tuesday's call, with the goal of settling the issue over this call and the next. After all, we need to know what our mandate is in order to know if we ar fulfilling it. Some notes:
1. It's not up to the Subgroup to define the Subgroup's mandate and Scope. This has been done in the foundational documents -- Charter. WS 1 Report and Transition Bylaw. What we need to do is clarify our understanding of that mandate and Scope.
2. As such, the foundational documents need to form both the basis and the boundary of any such clarification or proposal for clarification. These documents were excerpted in my "straw man" mandate document sent around in the last few weeks.
3. Mandate and Scope (defined in these documents) need to be distinguished from potential issues participants might raise. Such issues, by and large, are not mentioned in the foundational documents.
4. The Mandate and Scope will be used to determine if any potential issue is "in scope".
5. Discussions of the issue on the list in advance of the call will be most helpful, since the call is only an hour.
6. While some have said we have gone in circles on this issue, or avoided resolving it. The goal here and now is to avoid that fate, whatever the outcome might be.
Finally, I request broad participation on this issue, even if you have given up on this subject of discussion.
Thank you.
Greg _______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
Kavouss, I don't recall undertaking to produce such a document. Here is what I said regarding OFAC: It would be my suggestion to prepare for a call on the OFAC situation in two weeks' time so that we have both ample time to prepare and also that we will have some people back who won't be attending next week's call. I think there is definitely background information. I, for one, would like to perhaps hear from GoDaddy, their view on what happened with Crimea. So that we can get more general information on that. So I think we could have a more fruitful and well-rounded discussion in two weeks' time. If I am overlooking something, please let me know. Best regards, Greg On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 6:46 AM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Greg, In the last call , you undertook to produce a document addressing OFAC. This fundamental and crucial . Pls kindly refrain to provide your personal views ; which has been always respected as the views of individual and not the rapporteur, I am not convinced with the views that you and one of CCWG members provided few months ago. ICANN must be away from any political motivation. Domain name is Natural and mankind resources and does not belong to any state and must be used neutrally, efficiently, effectively and economivcal without any discrimination and any political motivation. If that issue is not appropriately addressed we failed to fulfill our responsibility . Blocking or removing a domain name is not admitted under any circumstances. Regards Kavouss
2017-06-05 8:41 GMT+02:00 <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>:
Dear Greg,
I have a calendar invite for Thursday (not Tuesday).
In any case, either Tuesday or Thursday I need to apologize because I'll be tied in meetings in Tallinn (Eurodig and EU).
As to the mandate and scope: please note my position that we need to stick to the mandate given to the CCWG ws2 by the chartering organizations.
The decision whether something is in or out of scope should be based on that mandate, should be considered in light of the specific facts of the case, and should be decided prima facie by the CCWG plenary...
The Subgroup may reach ex-post i.e. case by case its own understanding v-a-v a given case where there would be a question of in/out scope, but I don't think we should lose time on developing an ex-ante position of the Subgroup in general terms.
kind regards
Jorge
________________________________
Von: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> Datum: 4. Juni 2017 um 23:40:05 MESZ An: ws2-jurisdiction <ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> Betreff: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Mandate and Scope of Jurisdiction Subgroup will be on Tuesday's Agenda
All,
I wanted to provide advance notice that we will pick up the discussion of the Subgroup's Mandate and Scope on Tuesday's call, with the goal of settling the issue over this call and the next. After all, we need to know what our mandate is in order to know if we ar fulfilling it. Some notes:
1. It's not up to the Subgroup to define the Subgroup's mandate and Scope. This has been done in the foundational documents -- Charter. WS 1 Report and Transition Bylaw. What we need to do is clarify our understanding of that mandate and Scope.
2. As such, the foundational documents need to form both the basis and the boundary of any such clarification or proposal for clarification. These documents were excerpted in my "straw man" mandate document sent around in the last few weeks.
3. Mandate and Scope (defined in these documents) need to be distinguished from potential issues participants might raise. Such issues, by and large, are not mentioned in the foundational documents.
4. The Mandate and Scope will be used to determine if any potential issue is "in scope".
5. Discussions of the issue on the list in advance of the call will be most helpful, since the call is only an hour.
6. While some have said we have gone in circles on this issue, or avoided resolving it. The goal here and now is to avoid that fate, whatever the outcome might be.
Finally, I request broad participation on this issue, even if you have given up on this subject of discussion.
Thank you.
Greg _______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
Thanks Greg. Hi Kavouss: Thank you for your note. Since every state in the world is political in nature, both internally and externally, where is the proposed formation jurisdiction for ICANN? Every State that could play host will have political issues – that is just a fact. Also, do you really mean it when you say that “Blocking or removing a domain name is not admitted under any circumstances”? Are there really no circumstances under which a court should order the block or deletion of a domain name? Best, Paul From: ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Greg Shatan Sent: Wednesday, June 07, 2017 1:58 PM To: Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> Cc: ws2-jurisdiction <ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Mandate and Scope of Jurisdiction Subgroup will be on Tuesday's Agenda Kavouss, I don't recall undertaking to produce such a document. Here is what I said regarding OFAC: It would be my suggestion to prepare for a call on the OFAC situation in two weeks' time so that we have both ample time to prepare and also that we will have some people back who won't be attending next week's call. I think there is definitely background information. I, for one, would like to perhaps hear from GoDaddy, their view on what happened with Crimea. So that we can get more general information on that. So I think we could have a more fruitful and well-rounded discussion in two weeks' time. If I am overlooking something, please let me know. Best regards, Greg On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 6:46 AM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> wrote: Dear Greg, In the last call , you undertook to produce a document addressing OFAC. This fundamental and crucial . Pls kindly refrain to provide your personal views ; which has been always respected as the views of individual and not the rapporteur, I am not convinced with the views that you and one of CCWG members provided few months ago. ICANN must be away from any political motivation. Domain name is Natural and mankind resources and does not belong to any state and must be used neutrally, efficiently, effectively and economivcal without any discrimination and any political motivation. If that issue is not appropriately addressed we failed to fulfill our responsibility . Blocking or removing a domain name is not admitted under any circumstances. Regards Kavouss 2017-06-05 8:41 GMT+02:00 <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>: Dear Greg, I have a calendar invite for Thursday (not Tuesday). In any case, either Tuesday or Thursday I need to apologize because I'll be tied in meetings in Tallinn (Eurodig and EU). As to the mandate and scope: please note my position that we need to stick to the mandate given to the CCWG ws2 by the chartering organizations. The decision whether something is in or out of scope should be based on that mandate, should be considered in light of the specific facts of the case, and should be decided prima facie by the CCWG plenary... The Subgroup may reach ex-post i.e. case by case its own understanding v-a-v a given case where there would be a question of in/out scope, but I don't think we should lose time on developing an ex-ante position of the Subgroup in general terms. kind regards Jorge ________________________________ Von: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> Datum: 4. Juni 2017 um 23:40:05 MESZ An: ws2-jurisdiction <ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org<mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org>> Betreff: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Mandate and Scope of Jurisdiction Subgroup will be on Tuesday's Agenda All, I wanted to provide advance notice that we will pick up the discussion of the Subgroup's Mandate and Scope on Tuesday's call, with the goal of settling the issue over this call and the next. After all, we need to know what our mandate is in order to know if we ar fulfilling it. Some notes: 1. It's not up to the Subgroup to define the Subgroup's mandate and Scope. This has been done in the foundational documents -- Charter. WS 1 Report and Transition Bylaw. What we need to do is clarify our understanding of that mandate and Scope. 2. As such, the foundational documents need to form both the basis and the boundary of any such clarification or proposal for clarification. These documents were excerpted in my "straw man" mandate document sent around in the last few weeks. 3. Mandate and Scope (defined in these documents) need to be distinguished from potential issues participants might raise. Such issues, by and large, are not mentioned in the foundational documents. 4. The Mandate and Scope will be used to determine if any potential issue is "in scope". 5. Discussions of the issue on the list in advance of the call will be most helpful, since the call is only an hour. 6. While some have said we have gone in circles on this issue, or avoided resolving it. The goal here and now is to avoid that fate, whatever the outcome might be. Finally, I request broad participation on this issue, even if you have given up on this subject of discussion. Thank you. Greg _______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org<mailto:Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction ________________________________ The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. If this message has been received in error, please delete it without reading it. Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable privilege. Please do not disseminate this message without the permission of the author. Any tax advice contained in this email was not intended to be used, and cannot be used, by you (or any other taxpayer) to avoid penalties under applicable tax laws and regulations.
Dear Greg, I know that for you it would be difficult to understand the problem of those countries faced with OFAC or with FSIA. Those who have never had any headache barely understnd what a headache means . 2017-06-07 20:58 GMT+02:00 Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com>:
Kavouss,
I don't recall undertaking to produce such a document. Here is what I said regarding OFAC:
It would be my suggestion to prepare for a call on the OFAC situation in two weeks' time so that we have both ample time to prepare and also that we will have some people back who won't be attending next week's call. I think there is definitely background information. I, for one, would like to perhaps hear from GoDaddy, their view on what happened with Crimea. So that we can get more general information on that. So I think we could have a more fruitful and well-rounded discussion in two weeks' time.
If I am overlooking something, please let me know.
Best regards,
Greg
On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 6:46 AM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com
wrote:
Dear Greg, In the last call , you undertook to produce a document addressing OFAC. This fundamental and crucial . Pls kindly refrain to provide your personal views ; which has been always respected as the views of individual and not the rapporteur, I am not convinced with the views that you and one of CCWG members provided few months ago. ICANN must be away from any political motivation. Domain name is Natural and mankind resources and does not belong to any state and must be used neutrally, efficiently, effectively and economivcal without any discrimination and any political motivation. If that issue is not appropriately addressed we failed to fulfill our responsibility . Blocking or removing a domain name is not admitted under any circumstances. Regards Kavouss
2017-06-05 8:41 GMT+02:00 <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>:
Dear Greg,
I have a calendar invite for Thursday (not Tuesday).
In any case, either Tuesday or Thursday I need to apologize because I'll be tied in meetings in Tallinn (Eurodig and EU).
As to the mandate and scope: please note my position that we need to stick to the mandate given to the CCWG ws2 by the chartering organizations.
The decision whether something is in or out of scope should be based on that mandate, should be considered in light of the specific facts of the case, and should be decided prima facie by the CCWG plenary...
The Subgroup may reach ex-post i.e. case by case its own understanding v-a-v a given case where there would be a question of in/out scope, but I don't think we should lose time on developing an ex-ante position of the Subgroup in general terms.
kind regards
Jorge
________________________________
Von: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> Datum: 4. Juni 2017 um 23:40:05 MESZ An: ws2-jurisdiction <ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> Betreff: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Mandate and Scope of Jurisdiction Subgroup will be on Tuesday's Agenda
All,
I wanted to provide advance notice that we will pick up the discussion of the Subgroup's Mandate and Scope on Tuesday's call, with the goal of settling the issue over this call and the next. After all, we need to know what our mandate is in order to know if we ar fulfilling it. Some notes:
1. It's not up to the Subgroup to define the Subgroup's mandate and Scope. This has been done in the foundational documents -- Charter. WS 1 Report and Transition Bylaw. What we need to do is clarify our understanding of that mandate and Scope.
2. As such, the foundational documents need to form both the basis and the boundary of any such clarification or proposal for clarification. These documents were excerpted in my "straw man" mandate document sent around in the last few weeks.
3. Mandate and Scope (defined in these documents) need to be distinguished from potential issues participants might raise. Such issues, by and large, are not mentioned in the foundational documents.
4. The Mandate and Scope will be used to determine if any potential issue is "in scope".
5. Discussions of the issue on the list in advance of the call will be most helpful, since the call is only an hour.
6. While some have said we have gone in circles on this issue, or avoided resolving it. The goal here and now is to avoid that fate, whatever the outcome might be.
Finally, I request broad participation on this issue, even if you have given up on this subject of discussion.
Thank you.
Greg _______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
Kavouss, I'm not sure what you're trying to say, or how that is responsive to my email. Could you clarify that please? Thank you. Best regards, Greg On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 4:57 PM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Greg, I know that for you it would be difficult to understand the problem of those countries faced with OFAC or with FSIA. Those who have never had any headache barely understnd what a headache means .
2017-06-07 20:58 GMT+02:00 Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com>:
Kavouss,
I don't recall undertaking to produce such a document. Here is what I said regarding OFAC:
It would be my suggestion to prepare for a call on the OFAC situation in two weeks' time so that we have both ample time to prepare and also that we will have some people back who won't be attending next week's call. I think there is definitely background information. I, for one, would like to perhaps hear from GoDaddy, their view on what happened with Crimea. So that we can get more general information on that. So I think we could have a more fruitful and well-rounded discussion in two weeks' time.
If I am overlooking something, please let me know.
Best regards,
Greg
On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 6:46 AM, Kavouss Arasteh < kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Greg, In the last call , you undertook to produce a document addressing OFAC. This fundamental and crucial . Pls kindly refrain to provide your personal views ; which has been always respected as the views of individual and not the rapporteur, I am not convinced with the views that you and one of CCWG members provided few months ago. ICANN must be away from any political motivation. Domain name is Natural and mankind resources and does not belong to any state and must be used neutrally, efficiently, effectively and economivcal without any discrimination and any political motivation. If that issue is not appropriately addressed we failed to fulfill our responsibility . Blocking or removing a domain name is not admitted under any circumstances. Regards Kavouss
2017-06-05 8:41 GMT+02:00 <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>:
Dear Greg,
I have a calendar invite for Thursday (not Tuesday).
In any case, either Tuesday or Thursday I need to apologize because I'll be tied in meetings in Tallinn (Eurodig and EU).
As to the mandate and scope: please note my position that we need to stick to the mandate given to the CCWG ws2 by the chartering organizations.
The decision whether something is in or out of scope should be based on that mandate, should be considered in light of the specific facts of the case, and should be decided prima facie by the CCWG plenary...
The Subgroup may reach ex-post i.e. case by case its own understanding v-a-v a given case where there would be a question of in/out scope, but I don't think we should lose time on developing an ex-ante position of the Subgroup in general terms.
kind regards
Jorge
________________________________
Von: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> Datum: 4. Juni 2017 um 23:40:05 MESZ An: ws2-jurisdiction <ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> Betreff: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Mandate and Scope of Jurisdiction Subgroup will be on Tuesday's Agenda
All,
I wanted to provide advance notice that we will pick up the discussion of the Subgroup's Mandate and Scope on Tuesday's call, with the goal of settling the issue over this call and the next. After all, we need to know what our mandate is in order to know if we ar fulfilling it. Some notes:
1. It's not up to the Subgroup to define the Subgroup's mandate and Scope. This has been done in the foundational documents -- Charter. WS 1 Report and Transition Bylaw. What we need to do is clarify our understanding of that mandate and Scope.
2. As such, the foundational documents need to form both the basis and the boundary of any such clarification or proposal for clarification. These documents were excerpted in my "straw man" mandate document sent around in the last few weeks.
3. Mandate and Scope (defined in these documents) need to be distinguished from potential issues participants might raise. Such issues, by and large, are not mentioned in the foundational documents.
4. The Mandate and Scope will be used to determine if any potential issue is "in scope".
5. Discussions of the issue on the list in advance of the call will be most helpful, since the call is only an hour.
6. While some have said we have gone in circles on this issue, or avoided resolving it. The goal here and now is to avoid that fate, whatever the outcome might be.
Finally, I request broad participation on this issue, even if you have given up on this subject of discussion.
Thank you.
Greg _______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
On Monday 05 June 2017 03:09 AM, Greg Shatan wrote:
All,
I wanted to provide advance notice that we will pick up the discussion of the Subgroup's Mandate and Scope on Tuesday's call, with the goal of settling the issue over this call and the next. After all, we need to know what our mandate is in order to know if we ar fulfilling it. Some notes:
Greg I am happy to discuss the mandate question which seems to be bothering you. But we need to first understand what is the problem that has arisen "now" that we are trying to solve . We have of course discussed the mandate many times earlier. It seems that some people think that some issues are being brought up and discussed which are not in our mandate. Your email makes it look that you are one of such people who think so - but correct me if//I am wrong. In the circumstances, it will be most helpful for you and others who think so clearly articulate which is that issue or issues which you think is/are being brought up and discussed which you think is/are not in our scope. We can then discuss whether that issue (or issues ) is in scope or not. It will really be very difficult, and perhaps not fruitful, to just begun discussing the whole mandate, isnt it? So please point to the issue/ issues that you/ others find problematic vis a vis our mandate and we can discuss them. Best, parminder
1. It's not up to the Subgroup to define the Subgroup's mandate and Scope. This has been done in the foundational documents -- Charter. WS 1 Report and Transition Bylaw. What we need to do is clarify our understanding of that mandate and Scope.
2. As such, the foundational documents need to form both the basis and the boundary of any such clarification or proposal for clarification. These documents were excerpted in my "straw man" mandate document sent around in the last few weeks.
3. Mandate and Scope (defined in these documents) need to be distinguished from potential issues participants might raise. Such issues, by and large, are not mentioned in the foundational documents.
4. The Mandate and Scope will be used to determine if any potential issue is "in scope".
5. Discussions of the issue on the list in advance of the call will be most helpful, since the call is only an hour.
6. While some have said we have gone in circles on this issue, or avoided resolving it. The goal here and now is to avoid that fate, whatever the outcome might be.
Finally, I request broad participation on this issue, even if you have given up on this subject of discussion.
Thank you.
Greg
_______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
Good afternoon: Returning from four days off-line in Edinburgh, I find that the schedule is problematic. 1. My Calendar has this down for Thursday, 13.00 UTC. 2. That was confirmed during the most recent call on Tusday 30 May: Point 8.1 of the Agenda. 3. Unless I am mistaken, we have not yet received the Staff announcement of Calls for the week of 5 June. Regards CW On 04 Jun 2017, at 23:39, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
All,
I wanted to provide advance notice that we will pick up the discussion of the Subgroup's Mandate and Scope on Tuesday's call, with the goal of settling the issue over this call and the next. After all, we need to know what our mandate is in order to know if we ar fulfilling it. Some notes:
1. It's not up to the Subgroup to define the Subgroup's mandate and Scope. This has been done in the foundational documents -- Charter. WS 1 Report and Transition Bylaw. What we need to do is clarify our understanding of that mandate and Scope.
2. As such, the foundational documents need to form both the basis and the boundary of any such clarification or proposal for clarification. These documents were excerpted in my "straw man" mandate document sent around in the last few weeks.
3. Mandate and Scope (defined in these documents) need to be distinguished from potential issues participants might raise. Such issues, by and large, are not mentioned in the foundational documents.
4. The Mandate and Scope will be used to determine if any potential issue is "in scope".
5. Discussions of the issue on the list in advance of the call will be most helpful, since the call is only an hour.
6. While some have said we have gone in circles on this issue, or avoided resolving it. The goal here and now is to avoid that fate, whatever the outcome might be.
Finally, I request broad participation on this issue, even if you have given up on this subject of discussion.
Thank you.
Greg _______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
Re schedule The next Jurisdiction call is noted on the master calendar as Thursday 8 June 1300 which was confirmed with a calendar invite. Greg could you please advise if this is incorrect. Thanks B. On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 7:57 AM, CW Mail <mail@christopherwilkinson.eu> wrote:
Good afternoon:
Returning from four days off-line in Edinburgh, I find that the schedule is problematic.
1. My Calendar has this down for Thursday, 13.00 UTC.
2. That was confirmed during the most recent call on Tusday 30 May: Point 8.1 of the Agenda.
3. Unless I am mistaken, we have not yet received the Staff announcement of Calls for the week of 5 June.
Regards
CW
On 04 Jun 2017, at 23:39, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
All,
I wanted to provide advance notice that we will pick up the discussion of the Subgroup's Mandate and Scope on Tuesday's call, with the goal of settling the issue over this call and the next. After all, we need to know what our mandate is in order to know if we ar fulfilling it. Some notes:
1. It's not up to the Subgroup to define the Subgroup's mandate and Scope. This has been done in the foundational documents -- Charter. WS 1 Report and Transition Bylaw. What we need to do is clarify our understanding of that mandate and Scope.
2. As such, the foundational documents need to form both the basis and the boundary of any such clarification or proposal for clarification. These documents were excerpted in my "straw man" mandate document sent around in the last few weeks.
3. Mandate and Scope (defined in these documents) need to be distinguished from potential issues participants might raise. Such issues, by and large, are not mentioned in the foundational documents.
4. The Mandate and Scope will be used to determine if any potential issue is "in scope".
5. Discussions of the issue on the list in advance of the call will be most helpful, since the call is only an hour.
6. While some have said we have gone in circles on this issue, or avoided resolving it. The goal here and now is to avoid that fate, whatever the outcome might be.
Finally, I request broad participation on this issue, even if you have given up on this subject of discussion.
Thank you.
Greg _______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction@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
Bernie and All, That is correct. *This week's call is Thursday 8 June at 13:00. * A calendar invite was sent out on May 23. Greg On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 8:07 AM, Bernard Turcotte <turcotte.bernard@gmail.com
wrote:
Re schedule
The next Jurisdiction call is noted on the master calendar as Thursday 8 June 1300 which was confirmed with a calendar invite.
Greg could you please advise if this is incorrect.
Thanks
B.
On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 7:57 AM, CW Mail <mail@christopherwilkinson.eu> wrote:
Good afternoon:
Returning from four days off-line in Edinburgh, I find that the schedule is problematic.
1. My Calendar has this down for Thursday, 13.00 UTC.
2. That was confirmed during the most recent call on Tusday 30 May: Point 8.1 of the Agenda.
3. Unless I am mistaken, we have not yet received the Staff announcement of Calls for the week of 5 June.
Regards
CW
On 04 Jun 2017, at 23:39, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
All,
I wanted to provide advance notice that we will pick up the discussion of the Subgroup's Mandate and Scope on Tuesday's call, with the goal of settling the issue over this call and the next. After all, we need to know what our mandate is in order to know if we ar fulfilling it. Some notes:
1. It's not up to the Subgroup to define the Subgroup's mandate and Scope. This has been done in the foundational documents -- Charter. WS 1 Report and Transition Bylaw. What we need to do is clarify our understanding of that mandate and Scope.
2. As such, the foundational documents need to form both the basis and the boundary of any such clarification or proposal for clarification. These documents were excerpted in my "straw man" mandate document sent around in the last few weeks.
3. Mandate and Scope (defined in these documents) need to be distinguished from potential issues participants might raise. Such issues, by and large, are not mentioned in the foundational documents.
4. The Mandate and Scope will be used to determine if any potential issue is "in scope".
5. Discussions of the issue on the list in advance of the call will be most helpful, since the call is only an hour.
6. While some have said we have gone in circles on this issue, or avoided resolving it. The goal here and now is to avoid that fate, whatever the outcome might be.
Finally, I request broad participation on this issue, even if you have given up on this subject of discussion.
Thank you.
Greg _______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction@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
participants (7)
-
Bernard Turcotte -
CW Mail -
Greg Shatan -
icannlists -
Jorge.Cancio＠bakom.admin.ch -
Kavouss Arasteh -
parminder