[Internal-cg] Reminder: Action Items relating to Part 0 due by Sunday 27 Sept at 23:59 UTC

Tue Sep 29 10:25:46 UTC 2015

Dear All,
I am sorry to be late.
I was in the Plane during the deadline to comment
I fully agree with Martin to say
*"Accordingly, the ICG notes that the CCWG-Accountability has identified
ICANN’s jurisdiction as a topic for further work in Work Stream 2 (post
transition). It believes that this recognises that a change of jurisdiction
before or during the IANA transition would introduce unpredictability (in
particular in accountability) and complexity at a time when NTIA is seeking
predictability and stability. It recognises that jurisdiction remains an
important, but complex, issue that needs to be addressed based on a clear
assessment of the implications of different options. The ICG agrees that
the approach identified by CCWG-Accountability is an appropriate way of
continuing this work." *
Regards
Kavouss

2015-09-29 12:10 GMT+02:00 Subrenat, Jean-Jacques <jjs at dyalog.net>:

> Martin & All,
>
> thanks Martin for those improvements. However, in the sentence "It
> recognises that jurisdiction remains an important, but complex, issue that
> needs to be addressed based on a clear assessment of the implications of
> different options", the expression "but complex" seems to suggest that
> jurisdiction, more than other aspects, might jeopardize Transition. We know
> that the whole exercise is delicate, and that many of its components are
> complex.
>
> I would therefore request that the sentence be "It recognises that
> jurisdiction remains an important issue that needs to be addressed based on
> a clear assessment of the implications of different options".
>
> Thank you.
> Jean-Jacques.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ----- Mail original -----
> De: "Martin Boyle" <Martin.Boyle at nominet.org.uk>
> À: "Jennifer Chung" <jen at icgsec.asia>, internal-cg at ianacg.org
> Cc: admin at icgsec.asia
> Envoyé: Lundi 28 Septembre 2015 19:06:43
> Objet: Re: [Internal-cg] Reminder: Action Items relating to Part 0 due by
> Sunday 27 Sept at 23:59 UTC
>
>
>
>
>
> Following Milton’s comment about grammar (writing documents close to
> midnight at the end of a weekend is never a good idea!), I had a look at
> the text and have amended to try to correct the text and make it easier to
> understand. I’ve now posted (in mark-up) a v1.1 as
> Part-0-Jurisdiction-text-MB-v1-1.docx.
>
>
>
> Sorry for this.
>
>
>
> Best
>
>
>
> Martin
>
>
>
>
>
> From: Jennifer Chung [mailto:jen at icgsec.asia]
> Sent: 28 September 2015 16:49
> To: Martin Boyle; internal-cg at ianacg.org
> Cc: admin at icgsec.asia
> Subject: RE: Reminder: Action Items relating to Part 0 due by Sunday 27
> Sept at 23:59 UTC
>
>
>
> Dear Martin and All,
>
>
>
> This document is now in the Part 0 edits subfolder for your review and
> reference:
>
>
>
> Dropbox subfolder short link: http://icgsec.asia/1KyTHqT
>
> Document short link (renamed as “Part-0-Jurisdiction-text-MB-v1.docx”) :
> http://icgsec.asia/1NXmhYD
>
>
>
> Please let me know if you have any questions.
>
>
>
> Best Regards,
>
>
>
> Jennifer
>
>
>
>
>
> From: Martin Boyle [ mailto:Martin.Boyle at nominet.org.uk ]
> Sent: Sunday, September 27, 2015 5:47 PM
> To: Jennifer Chung < jen at icgsec..asia >; internal-cg at ianacg.org
> Cc: admin at icgsec.asia
> Subject: RE: Reminder: Action Items relating to Part 0 due by Sunday 27
> Sept at 23:59 UTC
>
>
>
> Never let it be said that I leave things to the last minute. My apologies
> to colleagues – I failed to recognise the deadline was Sunday night.
>
>
>
> I suggest that the wording for jurisdiction could read (also in the
> attached word document: Jenifer, could you post this into Dropbox, please?):
>
>
>
> Eighteen of the 157 contributions directly referred to jurisdiction. Of
> these, six (mainly from individuals) opposed the proposal for giving up US
> Government control and six opposed on because they argued that ICANN and
> IANA should be subject to international law and jurisdiction. Five agreed
> that the approach proposed by the CCWG-Accountability, that jurisdiction
> should be discussed further under Work Stream 2, looking at the
> implications of a transfer of jurisdiction following transition, while one
> supported maintaining the jurisdiction unchanged.
>
>
>
> The ICG recognised that there was no clear consensus from the comments
> opposing the proposal on the grounds of jurisdiction. This reflected the
> discussion in the CWG-Stewardship, where the discussion identified that
> significant and detailed analysis would be needed to assess objectively the
> implications and benefits of a transfer of jurisdiction. The ICG also noted
> that the additional complication of a change in jurisdiction at the time of
> transition of stewardship – given the implications on ICANN and PTI
> accountability – would increase the complexity of the proposal and add an
> additional risk in the transition.
>
>
>
> Accordingly, the ICG notes that the CCWG-Accountability has identified
> ICANN’s jurisdiction as a topic for further work in Work Stream 2 (post
> transition). It believes that this recognises that a change of jurisdiction
> before or during the IANA transition would introduce unpredictability (in
> particular in accountability) and complexity at a time when NTIA is seeking
> predictability and stability. It recognises that jurisdiction remains an
> important, but complex, issue that needs to be addressed based on a clear
> assessment of the implications of different options. The ICG agrees that
> the approach identified by CCWG-Accountability is an appropriate way of
> continuing this work.
>
>
>
> I think that this is what we agreed at our session in LA on Friday
> morning, but would welcome colleagues’ comments.
>
>
>
> Best
>
>
>
>
>
> Martin
>
>
>
>
>
> From: Jennifer Chung [ mailto:jen at icgsec.asia ]
> Sent: 25 September 2015 18:33
> To: Martin Boyle
> Cc: admin at icgsec.asia
> Subject: Reminder: Action Items relating to Part 0 due by Sunday 27 Sept
> at 23:59 UTC
>
>
>
> Hi Martin,
>
>
>
> Per Alissa, a friendly reminder that the following Action Items (from the
> F2F and Call 23) relating to Part 0 are due by Sunday 27 Sept at 23:59 UTC.
>
>
>
> M6: 7 Boyle to draft text summarizing comments and highlighting concerns
> received re jurisdiction to include in Part 0. (was Day 1 action item 3)
>
>
>
> The Secretariat has created a subfolder on Dropbox to collect all Part 0
> edits (short link: http://icgsec.asia/1KyTHqT ) – you may either upload
> to this subfolder or send us your document to be included as well.
>
>
>
> Please let me know if you have any questions.
>
>
>
> Best Regards,
>
>
>
> Jennifer
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Internal-cg mailing list
> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org
>
> _______________________________________________
> Internal-cg mailing list
> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150929/62936000/attachment.html>