Dear Greg, I'm afraid I'll have to challenge your suggestion that two full meetings were devoted to considering the terms of the decision supposedly arrived at in the very last minutes of yesterday's call. We moved from debating a proposal of yours to have a question you drafted submitted to the plenary, then past that question to a table where different approaches were gathered, and then to another table. At no point did we really consider the different approaches nor their substance, nor did you as rapporteur ensure that objections or support for the different approaches were tested and noted. Then, it was only in the very last minutes of yesterday's call that the formulation suggested by Thomas first appeared, who seemed to argue it was in line with Avri's suggestion in the previous meeting, and, because of that, that it would have garnered some support. Now, we all saw that the formulation does not reflect what Avri really said, so not even with a stretch of imagination it is accurate to affirm that the decision was arrived at after discussion. The expedite (not to say expedient) manner in which that proposal was presented and assumed to reflect consensus is quite worrying. In the interest of not having a "minority" statement that would later reveal to be a "majority" statement, I assume the best course of action would be to subject to the scrutiny of the Subgroup what was raised and supposedly decided during the last minutes of yesterday's call, in a transparent way, with clear deadlines for reactions, and only then validate any decision. Best, Thiago ________________________________ De: ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org [ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org] em nome de Greg Shatan [gregshatanipc@gmail.com] Enviado: quinta-feira, 15 de junho de 2017 18:27 Para: ws2-jurisdiction Assunto: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Fwd: [CCWG-ACCT] Caption Notes-Recordings-Transcript links for Jurisdiction Meeting #35 - 14 June 2017 Jurisdiction Subgroup Members, As noted below, after two full meetings devoted to the topic, the Subgroup arrived at a decision (excerpted verbatim from the transcript in the email below). For convenience, here it is again: We have concluded that the Jurisdiction sub-group will take California jurisdiction as a base line for all its recommendations, and that the sub-team not pursue recommendations to change ICANN's jurisdiction of incorporation, location of headquarters or seek immunity for ICANN. With this decision we are recognizing that there is no possibility that there would be consensus for an immunity based concept or a change of place of incorporation. As such I would establish in the minutes of this call that we focus on the solution that gets most traction. Recognizing that this does not eliminate, as I think Avri said during last week's call, that we can discuss all issues that might arise during the deliberations. But that we actually focus on the status quo being California law and place of incorporation. and work on solutions that are founded on this. Opposition was noted from four participants on the call (including one who left before the end, but had made his position clear. This decision will now be referred to the Plenary, consistent with CCWG procedures. With this, I believe that it is imperative that we return to and focus on identifying potential issues, deciding whether these are in fact issues within our remit, discussing those issues and making recommendations for resolving those issues. Greg ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: MSSI Secretariat <mssi-secretariat@icann.org<mailto:mssi-secretariat@icann.org>> Date: Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 1:46 PM Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] Caption Notes-Recordings-Transcript links for Jurisdiction Meeting #35 - 14 June 2017 To: CCWG Accountability <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Cc: "ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org<mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org>" <ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org<mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org>> Hello all, The caption notes, recordings and transcripts for CCWG Accountability WS2 Jurisdiction Subgroup Meeting #35– 14 June 2017 will be available here: https://community.icann.org/x/GSDwAw A copy of the action items and raw caption notes may be found below. With kind regards, Brenda Brewer, Projects & Operations Assistant Multistakeholder Strategy & Strategic Initiatives (MSSI) Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) [cid:image001.png@01D2E5D5.73E41D50] Skype: brenda.brewer.icann Phone: 1-310-745-1107<tel:(310)%20745-1107> Raw Captioning Notes Please note that these are the unofficial transcript. Official transcript will be posted 2-3 days after the call * Word Doc<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/66068505/Jurisdicton_0614IC...> * PDF<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/66068505/Jurisdiction_0614I...> Decisions: * Thomas Rickert for the CCWG-Accountability Co-Chairs, We have concluded that the Jurisdiction sub-group will take Californian jurisdiction as a base line for all its recommendations, and that the sub-team not pursue recommendations to change ICANN's jurisdiction of incorporation, location of headquarters or seek immunity for ICANN. With this decision we are recognizing that there is no possibility that there would be consensus for an immunity based concept or a change of place of incorporation. As such I would establish in the minutes of this call that we focus on the solution that gets most traction. Recognizing that this does not eliminate, as I think Avri said during last week's call, that we can discuss all issues that might arise during the deliberations. But that we actually focus on the status quo being Californian law and place of incorporation. and work on solutions that are founded on this. Action Items: * (none) Requests: * (none) _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community