Thiago, Thank you for your email. As an initial matter, I am surprised to see that the cover note to your minority report (pp. 1-2 of the PDF) is nothing more than the email that Benedicto sent to the Subgroup list several days ago. I assume that since it is only a cover note to the minority report, it is not intended to be considered for inclusion in the Subgroup Report. Nonetheless, the cover note does raise a number of issues (before we even get to the Minority Report): First, I assume when you refer to the "Chair," you mean the rapporteur of the Subgroup, and not the Chairs of the CCWG. In either case, you mean me. Second, I strongly disagree with (and I am quite taken aback by) this statement: Finally, Brazil objects to the portrayal of the report as a consensus document, which we understand is due to an incorrect consensus-level designation made by the Chair What is the origin of this "understanding"? How did you come to "understand" this? If this is your contention (or worse yet, the contention of the Government of Brazil) then come out and say it, rather than citing some vague "understanding." What is the basis for your contention that I made an "incorrect consensus-level designation"? That is a very serious allegation to lay before the Plenary without offering any support for it whatsoever. Our charter defines "consensus" as "a position where a small minority disagrees, but most agree." We had one objection on our last call, which I'm sure you know, since you were on the call and made that objection. (Of course, if this is Benedicto's statement, I suppose he can be forgiven in a sense for not knowing exactly what happened on the call.) We had one other objection on the email list. I consider two objections (or three, if we count you and Benedicto separately) out of 73 participants to be a "small minority." I can't see how it would be "understood" to be otherwise. If the basis is that I didn't phrase the finding of consensus with exactly the right words, that is picayune proceduralism. ICANN is not a place where "magic words" need to be invoked. It's the substance that matters, and I stand by the substance of my consensus determination (and I note that in spite of Benedicto's email to the Subgroup several days ago, no one else joined this view.) There is also an inherent illogic in your position. If the consensus determination was incorrect, then no Subgroup report should be submitted to the Plenary, and thus no need and no place for a minority report. On the other hand, if the report is properly submitted, then it would be appropriate to submit a minority report, but your accusation would be baseless. At the risk of using an idiomatic phrase, you can't have your cake and eat it too. I am also appalled by the grave accusation that "many views and contributions ... were systematically disregarded or ignored" during the work of the Subgroup. That is simply not true, and appears to be an attempt to undermine the legitimacy of the Subgroup and be extension, the CCWG. Indeed we probably spent an inordinate amount of time hearing out and considering the views and contributions of various participants (on a multitude of matters both procedural and substantive). I have to say that I find it quite inappropriate to bring this all up in a statement to the full CCWG, without any attempt to resolve the issue within the Subgroup or seeking the assistance of the Co-Chairs. It seems calculated more to score points than to solve problems. As for the mandate of the Subgroup, this was discussed at great length in the Subgroup (largely before you joined). Suffice it to say that there were many who did not take such an expansive view of the mandate as you put forth. There are many other concerns raised by this cover note, but this email is long enough as is. With regard to the Minority Report itself, it is critical to note that this is the first time that I or any member of the Subgroup has seen this document, though I recognize bits and pieces from some of your interventions. I will also note that the second set of Recommendations in our Subgroup Report benefited greatly from one of our participants pulling together a first draft from various interventions and submissions. If this Minority Report had been submitted to the Subgroup as a draft recommendation on a timely basis, perhaps that would have helped the Subgroup in a similar fashion -- though (based on the discussions in the Subgroup) it would be presumptuous to leave the impression that this would have resulted in a third recommendation. In any event, it is quite unfortunate that this was not done, and the choice was made to submit it to the Plenary instead. This Minority Report also seems to misunderstand the status of a Minority Report. It is a statement of the viewpoint of those who did not join the consensus. It is not something to be submitted for debate and decision by the Plenary as an ex post facto amendment of the Subgroup Report. This would subvert the very structure of Work Stream 2. A Minority Report is merely a non-consensus record of the position of one or a small group of participants. If there were time to do so, I would suggest redirecting this to the Subgroup for consideration as a possible recommendation by the Subgroup. That would at least be procedurally and substantively appropriate, if not temporally appropriate. But perhaps there is a reason this is being submitted here and now, as a "Minority Report" -- but uncontroverted by any part of the Subgroup Report or by any of the work of the Subgroup. The Plenary should understand that these viewpoints, and considerably different viewpoints with regard to these concepts, were discussed at considerable length in the Subgroup. Minority reports typically dissent from conclusions in the Subgroup Report, thus allowing readers to see both sides of an issue. This, of course, does no such thing. Perhaps there needs to be a counterpoint prepared, representing the other viewpoint or viewpoints on these topics. That would at least be a more fair representation of the work of the Subgroup as a whole. I will leave it to our Co-Chairs to decide the next steps with regard to this submission. Best regards, Greg On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 9:13 PM, Thiago Braz Jardim Oliveira < thiago.jardim@itamaraty.gov.br> wrote:
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> 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> 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