Dear all, Thanks Ambassador from Brazil for the response to ACCT. As the representative of China, I think Brazil had made lots of valid and valuable points with regard to Jurisdiction Subgroup Draft Report. China also share the concerns raised by Brazil and many other GAC members. Seminar held back in March in Beijing also showed that stakeholders in China face challenges with the current status of jurisdiction. In addition, I agree to Brazil that the proceedings and format with the subgroup report drafting need to be improved. Looking forward to the discussion we are going to have within GAC and at cross-community scenario. Best regards, Feng 发件人: gac-bounces@gac.icann.org [mailto:gac-bounces@gac.icann.org] 代表 Benedicto Fonseca Filho 发送时间: 2017年10月18日 6:23 收件人: accountability-cross-community@icann.org 抄送: 'ws2-jurisdiction'; gac@icann.org 主题: [GAC] CCWG plenary. Jurisdiction Subgroup Draft Report - Minority viewpoint 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 for viruses and dangerous content by <http://www.efa-project.org> E.F.A. Project, and is believed to be clean.