*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