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

Tue Sep 29 11:35:40 UTC 2015

I'm not sure I understand your point, Jean-Jacques.  

The sentence is not intended to imply that the complexity of the issue of jurisdiction would jeopardise transition, but simply to recognise that it is not a simple and open choice.  So for example, a change of jurisdiction could (almost certainly will) have implications for the whole framework of ICANN accountability that CCWG-Accountability has been discussing.  The phrase was intended to help explain why the issue of jurisdiction had become a WS2 issue.

That said, I'm neutral on this (in the previous paragraph it says, "significant and detailed analysis would be needed to assess objectively the implications and benefits of a transfer of jurisdiction"), so would be open to the views of others, and in particular to comments from Kavouss and Keith Drazek who've been the CCWG liaisons for us.

Best

Martin

-----Original Message-----
From: Subrenat, Jean-Jacques [mailto:jjs at dyalog.net] 
Sent: 29 September 2015 11:11
To: Martin Boyle
Cc: admin at icgsec.asia; Jennifer Chung; internal-cg at ianacg.org
Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Reminder: Action Items relating to Part 0 due by Sunday 27 Sept at 23:59 UTC

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