October 2017 - Accountability-Cross-Community

CCWG-Accountability-WS2 Answer on ombuds
by Bernard Turcotte Nov. 4, 2017

Nov. 4, 2017

Form Samantha Eisner: The answer to the question of: "The ultimate responsibility for the Ombuds office must remain with the Board »² is yes. There has to be a line of accountability from the Ombuds to the Board. This is particularly important as it is the Board¹s obligation to make sure that the Bylaws requirements are met appropriately, and also consdiering the internal access that the Ombuds is granted and the focus of ³internal² evaluation. This does not mean that that others cannot give inputs to the Board on that relationship with the Ombudsman. ‹ Samantha Eisner Deputy General Counsel, ICANN 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, California 90094 USA Direct Dial: +1 310 578 8631

8 16

Notes, recordings and transcript - WS2 Ombudsman Subgroup | Meeting #11 | Monday, 24 October 2016 @ 19:00 UTC
by MSSI Secretariat Oct. 30, 2017

Oct. 30, 2017

Hello all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for CCWG Accountability WS2 Ombudsman Subgroup - Meeting #11 - 24 October 2016 @ 19:00 UTC will be available on the wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/2xK4Aw. A copy of the notes from the meeting are available below. Thank you. Kindest Regards, Yvette Guigneaux Multi-Stakeholder & Strategic Initiative Assistant ICANN | Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers 12025 Waterfront Drive, Playa Vista, CA 90094 yvette.guigneaux(a)icann.org<mailto:yvette.guigneaux@icann.org> | www.icann.org[icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.icann.org&d=DQMFAw&…> ________________________________ Notes (including relevant parts of chat): 9 Participants at start of call. 1. Welcome Sebastien Bachollet: no exceptions. 2. Review of plan for Hyderabad Sebastien Bachollet: (Presentation of slides) Herb Waye: Concerned this report only represents the views of a small number of people and not the community. Sebastien Bachollet: Our work will be presented to the plenary of the CCWG-WS2 so this is not an issue. After it is accepted it will go for public comment to be accepted by the community. Herb Waye: Willing to pay for part of the evaluation, have funds and will have to do one (there may be a conflict of interest with such funding). Klaus: I am just thinking about if anybody outside the WG will actually understand the slides? Somehow I think not. We might need a more "understandable" version. Content is OK but who will understand and do we get the message across? Avri Doria: i think there will be chance to explain t to assembled crowd. In terms of staff accountability, we have included a reference to the necessity of coordinating with this group. Chris LaHatte: the slide about consent of the Ombuds is an issue Avri Doria: but the people listening will all be CCWG participants. Herb Waye Ombuds: Did this idea of consent come about as a copy of the reconsideration new process in the bylaws I wonder? Klaus: I think the cross group issue is critical now, we will need to have a mechanism in place to have the input from the other WG's Bernard Turcotte: @Klaus - the co-chairs advised on the leadership call last week that they would focus on this to ensure synchronicity between sub-groups Klaus: Great, good to know. Thanks Karen Mulberry: I am working out the details for the Review that you have asked for Cheryl Langdon-Orr: we should note that at least from the slide mentioning crossover matters the mention of Elections might be inflammatory for some CCWG Members. Sebastien Bachollet: This was one of my suggestions for our work. Herb Waye Ombuds: That idea is good Seébastien and it could be in the office but I would need to ask for funding for staff... The IOO could become a sort of ethics office Sebastien Bachollet: the evaluation will probably impact our timetable. Klaus: Ethics can never be a subject of an office but an community. Happy to discuss this at a face to face basis. Herb Waye Ombuds: Agree Klaus, two separate hats but some organizations do it as part time functions. Sbastien Bachollet: Shall we resume our calls immediately after Hyderabad. Next meeting on November 14 or 21? will check with staff AOB? (none). Adjourned.

2 1

CCWG plenary. Jurisdiction Subgroup Draft Report - Minority viewpoint
by Benedicto Fonseca Filho Oct. 28, 2017

Oct. 28, 2017

Dear all, I have been following carefully the discussions in the list. I do not intend to respond to the many points that were raised, but I think it is important to bear in mind the following, in preparation for tomorrow´s call: 1 - Our rules of engagement provide that "In the absence of full consensus, the Chair(s) should allow for the submission of minority viewpoint(s) and these, along with the consensus view, shall be included in the report" This is exactly the situation we are experiencing here. There is no full consensus in regard to the report, as there are formal objections. Those who, similarly to Brazil, object to the report, should be allowed to submit their minority viewpoint(s) and these shall be included in the report. It is as simple as that. Needless to say that those who have minority views should be free to choose the way they wish to make their views known, the rationale they are following, the reasons why they can´t accept the proposed recommendations or why they think those recommendations are insufficient, etc. There is no pre-determined format or template to be followed. In other words, the drafting of the minority viewpoints should be the responsibility of those those who hold such minority views and not be subject to collective deliberation. 2 - I acknowledge, on the other hand, that the "Statement" we circulated last Saturday might have included elements that we may consider to withdraw or reformulate without undermining the essence of our reasoning. I would think it would be appropriate, for example, for us to consider deletion of some portions of text included in the last paragraph of the first page of our "Statement" (Finally, Brazil objects to the portrayal of the report of a consensus document...") as they have elicited unnecessary controversy in regard to the process. Similarly, we could entertain changing, as per the results of discussions at the CCWG meeting, the way we have presented recommendations we would like to have seen in the report (the absence of which makes the whole report unacceptable to us), in order to make sure our document is duly formatted as a minority viewpoint and not be seen as additional input for further work at this stage. In that case, we could reformulate, for example, the introductory paragraph of point 6 ("Brazil calls upon the CCWG to include in a final report on jurisdiction recommendations to the effect that..." 3 - I wish to further clarify that both the Statement and its annex should be read as a single document. Both are needed to clarify the context and the substance of our objection. As stated above, however, we could agree to change the final outline of the document as a whole provided it is duly included in the report as a minority view. 4 - Finally, I should state that several comments that were posted on the list - some of them ironical or even outright disrespectful - seem to be guided by a very poor and narrow view of what should be the essence of the multistakeholder approach to Internet governance. At this point, I would like to state that what takes place in ICANN - although unique - is not dissociated from the rest of the ecosystem. If we want to put in place and improve an operational environment in which all stakeholders can exercise their roles and responsibilities, as per the Tunis Agenda for the Information Society, mutual respect and mutal recognition are needed. One of the main concerns that has guided our participation throughout this exercise was the attempt to explore a formula that would be aligned with the principle of sovereign equality among States. This is an un-negotiable principle and we cannot endorse any framework (either at ICANN or beyond) that would not adequately address this topic. This is not incompatible with maintaining ICANN's multistakeholder character nor should it be interpreted - as some maliciously do - as defending that ICANN becomes a government-led organisation. Finally, may I just recall that NETMundial, which Brazil is proud to have hosted, has called for the process of globalization of ICANN should lead up to a "truly international and global organization". I don´t recall at the time no one ridiculing that notion nor saying it was unrealistic or politically unachievable. I assume there is a long way towards that ultimate goal and that times are not favorable, however I would strongly advocate against losing sight of the vision that NETMundial provided us with. This should lead us to look into the challenges surrounding jurisdiction in a much bolder and comprehensive way than we were able to do. That´s why, in essence, we cannot agree with a report that shows the way for some "quick fixes" that, although important, are not sufficient to meet the expectations that led to the incorporation of that particular stream in WS2. Best regards, Benedicto -- This message has been scanned by E.F.A. Project and is believed to be clean.

3 2

Slide Deck - Plenary Face to Face 27 October 2017
by Jordan Carter Oct. 27, 2017

Oct. 27, 2017

Hi all Please find attached the slide deck for today for your info/reference. All best, Jordan Carter Co-Chair, CCWG Accountability WS2 -- *Jordan Carter* Chief Executive InternetNZ Office: +64 4 495 2118 <04-495%202118> | Mobile: +64 21 442 649 <021%20442%20649> | Skype: jordancarter Email: jordan(a)internetnz.net.nz

1 0

Fwd: Drafting Stress tests for Jurisdiction recommendations
by Thomas Rickert Oct. 27, 2017

Oct. 27, 2017

All, Please find below the stress tests thankfully prepared by Steve DelBianco and the message from Kavouss. Best, Thomas > Anfang der weitergeleiteten Nachricht: > > Von: Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org> > Betreff: Aw: Drafting Stress tests for Jurisdiction recommendations > Datum: 27. Oktober 2017 um 09:11:10 GMT+4 > An: Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh(a)gmail.com>, Thomas Rickert <rickert(a)anwaelte.de>, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe(a)sanchez.mx>, Jordan Carter <jordan(a)internetnz.net.nz> > Kopie: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com>, Bernard Turcotte <turcotte.bernard(a)gmail.com>, ws2-jurisdiction <ws2-jurisdiction(a)icann.org> > > Per Kavouss, I attach here DOC and PDF versions of the draft Stress Tests for Jurisdiction. > > From: Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh(a)gmail.com <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> > Date: Friday, October 27, 2017 at 8:59 AM > To: Thomas Rickert <rickert(a)anwaelte.de <mailto:rickert@anwaelte.de>>, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe(a)sanchez.mx <mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>>, Jordan Carter <jordan(a)internetnz.net.nz <mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz>> > Cc: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>>, Bernard Turcotte <turcotte.bernard(a)gmail.com <mailto:turcotte.bernard@gmail.com>>, ws2-jurisdiction <ws2-jurisdiction(a)icann.org <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org>>, Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org <mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org>> > Subject: Fwd: Drafting Stress tests for Jurisdiction recommendations > > Dear Co Chair, > Good moning to you and to all CCWG > urther to the discussions took place at the last CCWG Plenary , ,please finad attached a copy of correspondence received from Steve DelBianco who has kindly prepared the attached draft of three Stress Test the principle of their need to be attached / ome efernced in the CCWG Report on the Jurisdiction and find the most appropriate modality to include them in the outcome of the Jurisdiction activities ,as appropriate. > Pls kindly consider them and put thenm into the agenda of the CCWG F2F meeting for approval > Regards > Kavouss > ----- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh(a)gmail.com <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> > Date: Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 7:33 PM > Subject: Re: Drafting Stress tests for Jurisdiction recommendations > To: Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org <mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org>> > Cc: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>>, Cheryl Langdon-Orr <langdonorr(a)gmail.com <mailto:langdonorr@gmail.com>>, Thomas Rickert <thomas(a)rickert.net <mailto:thomas@rickert.net>> > > > Dear Steve > Thank you very much for yr kind actions and effort covering Groso Modo the case > Thus should be discussed and approved tomorrow before decisions being taken on the second reading > Tks again > Kavouss > > Sent from my iPhone > > On 26 Oct 2017, at 18:43, Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org <mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org>> wrote: > >> Kavouss, >> >> As we discussed, I have drafted 3 stress tests relevant to the sanctions recommendation in the latest Jurisdiction report. (attached). >> >> If you find this is helpful, you could circulate to the plenary for broader review. >> >> Regards, >> Steve >> >> — >> Steve DelBianco >> President & CEO >> NetChoice >> http://www.NetChoice.org <http://www.netchoice.org/> >> +1.703.615.6206 <tel:(703)%20615-6206> >> >> >> <Stress Tests for WS2 Jurisdiction report [draft v1].pdf> >> <Stress Tests for WS2 Jurisdiction report [draft v1].docx> >

1 0

Jurisdiction Subgroup. Draft Report. Statement of Brazil. Annex. To be annexed to the draft report. For consideration by the CCWG.
by Thiago Braz Jardim Oliveira Oct. 26, 2017

Oct. 26, 2017

Dear all, On behalf of the Brazilian Government, I hereby submit the "Statement of Brazil" and its annex, which are to be annexed to the draft report of the jurisdiction subgroup, submitted on 11 October 2017, for consideration by the CCWG plenary. Best regards, Thiago ________________________________ De: ws2-jurisdiction-bounces(a)icann.org [ws2-jurisdiction-bounces(a)icann.org] em nome de Greg Shatan [gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com] Enviado: quinta-feira, 12 de outubro de 2017 23:29 Para: accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org Cc: acct-staff(a)icann.org; ws2-jurisdiction Assunto: Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Jurisdiction Subgroup Draft Report for CCWG-Accountability Plenary Review All, One of the Subgroup members pointed out a minor editing error in the document. On pages 13-14, there were several mentions of the RAA, when in fact the language quoted and discussed was from the ICANN Terms and Conditions for Registrar Accreditation Application. (The reference was correct in the Executive Summary.) This has now been fixed in the attached. Greg On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 10:10 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> wrote: All, Some minor formatting errors crept into the Report when it was converted from Word to PDF. A new PDF of the report is attached. I've checked each page to confirm that the formatting errors were resolved. Thank you to Jorge Cancio for catching this problem! Greg On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 7:53 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> wrote: All, I am pleased to submit the Draft Report from the Jurisdiction Subgroup for consideration by the CCWG-Accountability Plenary. It is my understanding that a minority viewpoint is expected to be submitted. In the interests of time, this will be submitted to the Plenary separately from the Draft Report. During the preparation of the OFAC Recommendation, the Subgroup considered an email where a registrar declined to do business with a potential reseller, based on the registrar’s policy of not doing business with people with Iranian passports. The Subgroup also learned that this registrar, which had been registering domains for a number of Iranian nationals, refused to continue to do business with them. The Subgroup has concluded that, to the extent these instances are related to OFAC, the concerns raised by these instances are adequately covered in the Recommendation already without any additional changes. This is not in any way a comment on the validity of these particular concerns. The Subgroup will consider creating "stress tests" based on these scenarios. I look forward to the Plenary's reading of the Draft Report. Best regards, Greg Shatan Rapporteur

10 23

CCWG. Jurisdiction draft report. Brazil's revised dissenting statement.
by Thiago Braz Jardim Oliveira Oct. 25, 2017

Oct. 25, 2017

Dear Co-Chairs, Dear All, Please find attached the revised version of Brazil's dissenting statement, which I submit on behalf of Brazil, and which is to be attached to the draft report on jurisdiction. Best regards, Thiago ________________________________ De: accountability-cross-community-bounces(a)icann.org [accountability-cross-community-bounces(a)icann.org] em nome de Bernard Turcotte [turcotte.bernard(a)gmail.com] Enviado: sexta-feira, 20 de outubro de 2017 11:51 Para: Accountability Cross Community Assunto: [CCWG-ACCT] CCWG-Accountability-WS2-Plenary-20171018-Jurisdiction Co-Chair Statement on way forward Co-Chair’s statement on the way forward for the Jurisdiction recommendations All, The Co-Chairs have reviewed the recording, chat transcript and captioning of the 18 October plenary as it relates to the discussion of the first reading of the Jurisdiction draft recommendations in an effort to determine the best way forward amongst the many opinions and requests presented at this meeting (please note that the relevant parts of those documents have been assembled by staff into one document attached to this email for your consideration). First the Co-Chairs would like to again thank all participants, but especially Ambassador Benedicto Fonseca Filho of Brazil, for the constructive and professional nature of the discussions. These discussions allowed everyone to understand the complexity of the issues presented by Brazil as well as the limitations that a process such as WS2 must impose on such work and the intrinsic impossibility of reconciling these when dealing with concerns of such magnitude. The recommendations presented by the Jurisdiction sub-group were arrived at in good faith and represent a clear step forward for the community in these specific areas. This being said, these recommendations clearly only scratch the surface of a number of very complex issues including those presented by Brazil in their minority opinion. In considering the best way forward for the Jurisdiction recommendations the Co-Chairs took special note of the following from the raw captioning record: • Benedicto Fonseca Filho - We would certainly be happy to get rid of everything related to process, anything that can be found to be [indiscernible] or anything of that sort. We want to focus on the substance, but to make clear that the report as such does not address key concerns we have and that, therefore, we avail ourselves to file this minority [indiscernible]. • Benedicto Fonseca Filho - Thank you. I'll be very short. Actually just to further clarify what I said before with regard to the official deadline. I think this issue is very complex and you don't solve complex issues in maybe one or two years, it requires a process for this because it needs to mature, there are political realities that sometimes repeat for a number of years. So what I am saying, I don't think to allow one or two or three more weeks or two months would be enough. I think that there's something that we could maybe entertain would be to see some [indiscernible] action and to acknowledge it's a file that needs to be under constant scrutiny, maybe the object of standing effort on the part of ICANN. And I think what should guide that decision that was [indiscernible] but [indiscernible] International organization that is truly International, not interGovernmental, but [indiscernible] stakeholder [indiscernible] new I understand, I fully concur that [indiscernible] it's not believed that once we [indiscernible] as to load that file. As to a third thing to be concerned with something very limited and say this is the end of it. But that's the emotion I would like to convey. Thank you. As such the Co-Chairs would propose that Brazil submit its revised minority opinion to the plenary list by 23:59 UTC 25 October so that the members and participants can consider it prior to the 27 October plenary. In order to be responsive to the issues raised, we will change the format of the face to face meeting and will be providing ample room for opinions and positions to be expressed and put on the record. This will allow for our group to recognize the different viewpoints and challenges that either could not be dealt with in the report or could not be reflected in the report to everyone’s satisfaction. During this time slot, we will be offering Brazil the opportunity to present its revised minority opinion to the plenary and answer questions on it from the members and the participants. Jurisdiction challenges have been discussed and caused controversial debates since ICANN’s inception and we hope and expect that these discussions will not end with the completion of work stream 2. Thus, a record of this discussion will surely serve as a valuable source of information to inform further discussions beyond the contents of our report. The Co-Chairs also recommend that the second reading of the Jurisdiction draft recommendations be conducted at the 27 October face to face meeting as staff have confirmed that any significant delay in approving these recommendations could endanger their inclusion in the WS2 Final Report. This would allow for the Jurisdiction draft recommendations to be published for public consultation soon after ICANN 60 and would allow the entire community to comment on the recommendations as well as the minority opinions. Although not a perfect solution we believe that this is the one which represents the majority of views. Bernard Turcotte for the CCWG-Accountability-WS2 Co-Chairs -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by E.F.A. Project<http://www.efa-project.org>, and is believed to be clean. -- This message has been scanned by E.F.A. Project and is believed to be clean.

1 0

WS2 October 2017 dashboard
by Nathalie Vergnolle Oct. 24, 2017

Oct. 24, 2017

Dear all, The October update of WS-2 Dashboard is now available (see attached), and has been posted to the wiki <https://community.icann.org/display/WEIA/WS2+Dashboard> here. (This report was expedited for ICANN60, and has incomplete statistics for the month of October. A revised version will be posted early November with the full month's data.) Thank you, Nathalie. Nathalie Vergnolle Sr. Project Manager, Multistakeholder Strategy & Strategic Initiatives ICANN nathalie.vergnolle(a)icann.org <mailto:nathalie.vergnolle@icann.org> Telephone Direct: +1(310) 578-8957 Cell: +1(310) 871-8561 Skype: Nathalie.vergnolle.icann 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536

1 0

CCWG-Accountability-WS2-ICANN60-FaceToFace Agenda
by Bernard Turcotte Oct. 24, 2017

Oct. 24, 2017

*Agenda for the CCWG-Accountability-WS2 Plenary of 27 October 08:30 Local (04:30 UTC)* *Location: HALL 3* **Adobe Connect : https://participate.icann.org/abu60-hall3 ** *Meeting Web page: https://schedule.icann.org/event/CbHn/ccwg-accountability-ws2-face-to-face-plenary-session-icann-60 <https://schedule.icann.org/event/CbHn/ccwg-accountability-ws2-face-to-face-…> * 1. *08:30 – 09:00 local (04:30 – 05:00 UTC) *Coffee 2. *0900 local (0500 UTC) - *Introduction, update to SOIs, reminder on standards of behavior 3. Review of Agenda 4. Administration 4.1. Plenaries dates going forward 4.2. Hight interest presentation 4.3. ICANN 61 4.4. Review of timeline and status of Reports 5. Legal Committee Update 6. *10:00 local (06:00 UTC)* - Update on IRP-IOT 7. *10:30 – 11:00 local (06:30 – 07:00 UTC) Coffee break* 8. *11:00 local (7:00 UTC)* - Second reading of the final recommendations of the Transparency sub-group 9. *11:30 -12:30 local (07:30 – 08:30 UTC) *Jurisdiction - Presentation and discussion of minority opinions and other views - Session 1 10. *12:30 – 13:30 local (08:30 – 09:30 UTC) *Lunch – buffet served in-room 11. *13:30 -14:30 local (09:30 – 10:30 UTC) - *Jurisdiction - Presentation and discussion of minority opinions and other views Session - 2 12. *14:30 – 15:00 local (10:30 – 11:00 UTC)* – Jurisdiction – second reading of the draft recommendations. 13. *15:00 local (11:00 UTC)* AOB 14. *15:00 – 15:30 local (11:00 – 11:30 UTC) –* Wrap-up and Co-Chair statement on the meeting. 15. Adjournment

2 1

CCWG-Accountability-WS2-Plenary-20171018-Jurisdiction Co-Chair Statement on way forward
by Bernard Turcotte Oct. 20, 2017

Oct. 20, 2017

*Co-Chair’s statement on the* *way forward for the Jurisdiction recommendations * All, The Co-Chairs have reviewed the recording, chat transcript and captioning of the 18 October plenary as it relates to the discussion of the first reading of the Jurisdiction draft recommendations in an effort to determine the best way forward amongst the many opinions and requests presented at this meeting (please note that the relevant parts of those documents have been assembled by staff into one document attached to this email for your consideration). First the Co-Chairs would like to again thank all participants, but especially Ambassador Benedicto Fonseca Filho of Brazil, for the constructive and professional nature of the discussions. These discussions allowed everyone to understand the complexity of the issues presented by Brazil as well as the limitations that a process such as WS2 must impose on such work and the intrinsic impossibility of reconciling these when dealing with concerns of such magnitude. The recommendations presented by the Jurisdiction sub-group were arrived at in good faith and represent a clear step forward for the community in these specific areas. This being said, these recommendations clearly only scratch the surface of a number of very complex issues including those presented by Brazil in their minority opinion. In considering the best way forward for the Jurisdiction recommendations the Co-Chairs took special note of the following from the raw captioning record: · Benedicto Fonseca Filho - We would certainly be happy to get rid of everything related to process, anything that can be found to be [indiscernible] or anything of that sort. We want to focus on the substance, but to make clear that the report as such does not address key concerns we have and that, therefore, we avail ourselves to file this minority [indiscernible]. · Benedicto Fonseca Filho - Thank you. I'll be very short. Actually just to further clarify what I said before with regard to the official deadline. I think this issue is very complex and you don't solve complex issues in maybe one or two years, it requires a process for this because it needs to mature, there are political realities that sometimes repeat for a number of years. So what I am saying, I don't think to allow one or two or three more weeks or two months would be enough. I think that there's something that we could maybe entertain would be to see some [indiscernible] action and to acknowledge it's a file that needs to be under constant scrutiny, maybe the object of standing effort on the part of ICANN. And I think what should guide that decision that was [indiscernible] but [indiscernible] International organization that is truly International, not interGovernmental, but [indiscernible] stakeholder [indiscernible] new I understand, I fully concur that [indiscernible] it's not believed that once we [indiscernible] as to load that file. As to a third thing to be concerned with something very limited and say this is the end of it. But that's the emotion I would like to convey. Thank you. As such the Co-Chairs would propose that Brazil submit its revised minority opinion to the plenary list by 23:59 UTC 25 October so that the members and participants can consider it prior to the 27 October plenary. In order to be responsive to the issues raised, we will change the format of the face to face meeting and will be providing ample room for opinions and positions to be expressed and put on the record. This will allow for our group to recognize the different viewpoints and challenges that either could not be dealt with in the report or could not be reflected in the report to everyone’s satisfaction. During this time slot, we will be offering Brazil the opportunity to present its revised minority opinion to the plenary and answer questions on it from the members and the participants. Jurisdiction challenges have been discussed and caused controversial debates since ICANN’s inception and we hope and expect that these discussions will not end with the completion of work stream 2. Thus, a record of this discussion will surely serve as a valuable source of information to inform further discussions beyond the contents of our report. The Co-Chairs also recommend that the second reading of the Jurisdiction draft recommendations be conducted at the 27 October face to face meeting as staff have confirmed that any significant delay in approving these recommendations could endanger their inclusion in the WS2 Final Report. This would allow for the Jurisdiction draft recommendations to be published for public consultation soon after ICANN 60 and would allow the entire community to comment on the recommendations as well as the minority opinions. Although not a perfect solution we believe that this is the one which represents the majority of views. Bernard Turcotte for the CCWG-Accountability-WS2 Co-Chairs

1 0