Why would we list in WS2 an inquiry into possible problems we have not yet identified and of which we are not yet aware? We might as well list “possible adverse action by the GAC” or “possible default by ICANN on its debt” or thousands of other possibilities that are evanescent and indeterminate. I agree, of course, that IF our inquiry suggests a real problem it would be appropriate to place it on the WS2 agenda. But identifying as agenda item a contingent possibility of indeterminate provenance simply because of its political salience is, I respectfully submit, inadmissible. WS2 is filled enough with problems and issues we actually know exist … we shouldn’t put down placeholders for every issue that some consider of possible merit.

Paul

Paul Rosenzweig

O: +1 (202) 547-0660

M: +1 (202) 329-9650

VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739

Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066

Link to my PGP Key

From: Pedro Ivo Ferraz da Silva [mailto:pedro.ivo@itamaraty.gov.br]
Sent: Thursday, April 16, 2015 5:12 PM
To: 'Greg Shatan'
Cc: accountability-cross-community@icann.org
Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] RES: RES: Initial draft section 8 - work stream 2

Dear Greg,

Thank you for the email.

We have just started to interact with the legal firms and are slowly being acquainted with their advice. In the course of the next weeks/months I believe we will be able to better identify whether there are limitations or not regarding ICANN's current jurisdiction. This is why I wrote "possible accountability limitations".

Maybe the text at the end of the sentence is a bit misleading, but I didn't mean they have been already identified. This is still work in progress.

Regards,

Secretário Pedro Ivo Ferraz da Silva

Divisão da Sociedade da Informação (DI)

Ministério das Relações Exteriores - Brasil

T: + 55 61 2030-6609

Secretary Pedro Ivo Ferraz da Silva

Division of Information Society (DI)

Ministry of External Relations - Brazil

T: + 55 61 2030-6609

-----Mensagem original-----
De: Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com]
Enviada em: quinta-feira, 16 de abril de 2015 18:02
Para: Pedro Ivo Ferraz da Silva
Cc: Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr; accountability-cross-community@icann.org
Assunto: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] RES: Initial draft section 8 - work stream 2

Pedro,

First, your thanks are very much appreciated, and I thank you for them in return.

Second, would you be so kind as to provide some of the possible accountability limitations you refer to, or direct me to where they have been identified? I would like to make sure that I understand the concern.

Thank you in advance.

Best regards,

Greg Shatan

On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 3:54 PM, Pedro Ivo Ferraz da Silva <pedro.ivo@itamaraty.gov.br> wrote:

Dear CCWG-Colleagues,

I suggest the following point be included:

- Alternative options for ICANN's jurisdiction (understood as 'place of legal establishment') based on possible accountability limitations related to the current jurisdiction of the Corporation (identified during WS1);

I assume the first item ("enhancements to ICANN's accountability based on the law(s) applicable to its actions") of the proposed WS2 list may also refer to jurisdiction, but I believe a clear reference to the term and to what we discussed in Istanbul is more adequate.

Note: I take the opportunity to thank Greg Shatan for his useful distinction of the various meanings associated with the term 'jurisdiction'.

Kind regards,

Secretário Pedro Ivo Ferraz da Silva

Divisão da Sociedade da Informação (DI)

Ministério das Relações Exteriores - Brasil

T: + 55 61 2030-6609 <tel:%2B%2055%2061%202030-6609>

Secretary Pedro Ivo Ferraz da Silva

Division of Information Society (DI)

Ministry of External Relations - Brazil

T: + 55 61 2030-6609 <tel:%2B%2055%2061%202030-6609>

-----Mensagem original-----

De: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] Em nome de Mathieu Weill

Enviada em: quinta-feira, 16 de abril de 2015 10:58

Para: accountability-cross-community@icann.org

Assunto: [CCWG-ACCT] Initial draft section 8 - work stream 2

Dear Colleagues,

As part of our planned report structure for public comment, section 8 is planned to address work stream 2 : what items would be considered and how would we ensure commitment that they will indeed be addressed ? The task of assembling a draft was assigned to the co-chairs in Istanbul.

With precious help from staff, we are circulating this initial draft, building on the idea of a transitional article in the Bylaws, which seemed to get traction in Istanbul. The list of items is very tentative.

the status of the document is an Initial draft. Amendments sent before Friday 17 Apr 15.00 UTC will be incorporated into the “freeze period”

document. And of course, full and detailed review will be on the agenda of our intense work days (so this is NOT an urgent last call).

Thanks for your consideration,

*****************************

Mathieu WEILL

AFNIC - directeur général

Tél: +33 1 39 30 83 06 <tel:%2B33%201%2039%2030%2083%2006>

mathieu.weill@afnic.fr

Twitter : @mathieuweill

*****************************

_______________________________________________

Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list

Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org

https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community