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

Tue Sep 29 14:45:22 UTC 2015

I agree with Jean-Jacques. 
We don't need the phrase "but complex" and it does sound like we are being weaselly a bit. 
No issues raised by deleting it, less is more. 

--MM

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of
> Subrenat, Jean-Jacques
> Sent: Tuesday, September 29, 2015 8:25 AM
> To: Martin Boyle
> Cc: admin at icgsec.asia; 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
> 
> Thank you Martin.
> 
> My point was that underlining the complexity of jurisdiction simply burdened
> it in such a way that it became a special issue. As you remarked quite rightly,
> the previous paragraph is explicit enough, so we should leave it at that. That
> is why I request that "but complex" be deleted.
> 
> Best regards,
> Jean-Jacques.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ----- Mail original -----
> De: "Martin Boyle" <Martin.Boyle at nominet.org.uk>
> À: "Jean-Jacques Subrenat" <jjs at dyalog.net>
> Cc: admin at icgsec.asia, "Jennifer Chung" <jen at icgsec.asia>, internal-
> cg at ianacg.org
> Envoyé: Mardi 29 Septembre 2015 13:35:40
> Objet: RE: [Internal-cg] Reminder: Action Items relating to Part 0 due by
> Sunday 27 Sept at 23:59 UTC
> 
> 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
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Internal-cg mailing list
> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org