Concur with Paul. On Sun, Oct 15, 2017, 5:22 PM Paul Rosenzweig < paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> wrote:
+1 It is time, and past time, for this subgroup to conclude its work.
Paul Rosenzweig
paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com
O: +1 (202) 547-0660
M: +1 (202) 329-9650
VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739
www.redbranchconsulting.com
My PGP Key: https://keys.mailvelope.com/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x9A830097CA066684
*From:* accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Raphaël BEAUREGARD-LACROIX *Sent:* Sunday, October 15, 2017 9:11 AM *To:* <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> *Cc:* accountability-cross-community@icann.org; gac@icann.org; gac@gac.icann.org; acct-staff@icann.org; ws2-jurisdiction < ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> *Subject:* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] [GAC] Jurisdiction Subgroup. Draft Report. Statement of Brazil. Annex. To be annexed to the draft report. For consideration by the CCWG.
Dear all,
The way I see it is that we were as individual members responsible to bring up issues and to come up with draft recommendations on that basis.
Quoting the Brazilian submission :
*"many views and contributions made during the process – including in some cases our own – were systematically disregarded or ignored, with no effort being made to build consensus and bridge differences with respect to these views and contributions."*
This statement is, in my view, valid only to the extent that it falls with the Rapporteur of the subgroup to turn *all *(and I would add here, "systematically" all) issues raised into draft recommendations. That is not my understanding of the work of a Rapporteur, nor does it seem to be Greg's, in this instance.
As Jorge points out, we have had a few inconclusive discussions on several topics and I do not think that anyone here is under a duty to write up a draft recommendation on the basis of an inconclusive discussion.
Rather, if some members of this subgroup perceive that consensus can be reached on a specific issue, it is up to them to present a draft recommendation to the subgroup, or at least to take the necessary measures to start some work on that. This was not done within the time limit set, it is unfortunate indeed, but we were all in the same boat on that.
That is my understanding, which does not seem to be shared by everyone. Maybe a clarification on that matter is warranted, would it be only for the sake of future work under that format.
As for what is to be done with this submission, I do not have a strong preference for a specific solution, although leaving it as is does not seem to be the most appropriate thing to do at this point, given its level of "contentiousness"
Best,
Raphael
2017-10-15 14:22 GMT+02:00 <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>:
Dear Thiago, dear all,
Thanks for these comments.
Personally I'm a bit unclear why some of the issues identified as such by members of the Jurisdiction Subgroup (was it in August, when we lastly did so after being requested doing so?) did not receive the form of draft recommendations in the Subgroup.
Regarding tailored or limited immunities (remembering how Thomas Rickert had described this when the scope was last discussed...), we had various debates on it mainly on list that were rather inconclusive (the way I remember it).
At the same time when we were asked to identify issues to be discussed, if my recollection is correct, Thiago presented an issue proposal... So I wonder why this did not get into the recommendation debate stage.
With this I do not suggest to enter a lengthy procedural discussion.
What I would suggest instead is that we request our Brazilian colleagues (and other potentially interested members) to recirculate the issue they had prepared some months ago in the Subgroup and adapt it to a recommendation format.
This would allow us to discuss the substance in a focused manner in the Subgroup and get back to the Plenary asap.
In a way it would be unfair to all of us not to hold this "final" discussion on this subject after having been presented repeatedly in the CCWG and the Subgroup, when we are still on time (very late I know, but with room to do so).
hope this helps
kind regards
Jorge
________________________________
Von: Thiago Braz Jardim Oliveira <thiago.jardim@itamaraty.gov.br> Datum: 15. Oktober 2017 um 03:15:05 MESZ An: accountability-cross-community@icann.org < accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Cc: ws2-jurisdiction <ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org>, acct-staff@icann.org < acct-staff@icann.org>, gac@icann.org <gac@icann.org>, GAC < gac@gac.icann.org> Betreff: [GAC] Jurisdiction Subgroup. Draft Report. Statement of Brazil. Annex. To be annexed to the draft report. For consideration by the CCWG.
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@icann.org [ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org] em nome de Greg Shatan [gregshatanipc@gmail.com] Enviado: quinta-feira, 12 de outubro de 2017 23:29 Para: accountability-cross-community@icann.org Cc: acct-staff@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@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@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
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
--
Raphaël Beauregard-Lacroix
LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rapha%C3%ABl-beauregard-lacroix-88733786/> - @rbl0012 <https://twitter.com/rbl0112> - M: +33 7 86 39 18 15
_______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction