October 2017 - Ws2-jurisdiction

2nd reading of jurisdiction sub group report
by parminder Nov. 4, 2017

Nov. 4, 2017

Greg It is unfortunate that among the few and very weak arguments that you put forward today in the f3f meeting about why customised immunity was never officially discussed in the sub-group you said that this was because it was offered as remedy without showing the issues that it addressed.... This, as I said during the meeting, is a shockingly false statement, and I said that I would provide evidence for it. You came back and stood by your statement. And so, the evidence as I promised is below. You set up a google doc on influence of existing jurisdiction on ICANN (link to it follows) to collect the issues that needed to be addressed, right.... One of the first entries made on it was mine, and it was extensively commented upon (most extensively by yourself).... This was close to the start of the process, near the middle of 2016. The entry on various issues I made was as follows. (cut paste form the doc begins) 1. A US court may find ICANN's actions, involving actual operation if its policies –like delegation of a gTLD, and/ or acceptance of certain terms of registry operation, to be in derogation of US law and instruct it to change its actions. 2. Emergency, including war related, powers of the US state – existing, or that may be legislated in the future, like for instance that involves country's critical infrastructure – may get invoked with respect to ICANN's policies and functions in a manner that are detrimental to some other country (or countries). 3. An US executive agency like OFAC may prohibit or limit engagement of ICANN with entities in specific countries. 4. FCC which has regulatory jurisdiction over US's communication infrastructure may in future find some ICANN functions and/ or policies to be such that it would like to apply its regulatory powers over them in what it thinks is the interest of the US public. 5. US customs, or such other enforcement agency may want to force ICANN to seize a private gTLD of a business that is located outside US which these agencies find as contravening US law, like its intellectual property laws. 6. A sector regulator in the US, say in the area of health/ pharma, transportation, hotels, etc, may find issues with the registry agreement that ICANN allows to a registry that takes up key gTLD denoting these sectors, like .pharma, .car, .hotel and lays exclusion-inclusion and other principles for the gTLD, and it may force ICANN to either rescind or change the agreement, and conditions under it. (ENDS) This entry with many comments is still visible in this doc that you developed, https://docs.google.com/document/d/1_uxN8A5J3iaofnGlr5gYoFVKudgg_DuwDgIuyIC… All these are directly issues that point towards customised immunity as the remedy -- and lest there be any doubt the connection was explicitly made in group's email discussions. Many of these issues were again underlined by a statement made, in Nov 2016 at Hyderabad ICANN, by nearly all Indian NGOs active in IG area and supported by two largest global coalitions in this area. Pl see http://itforchange.net/sites/default/files/Jurisdiction%20of%20ICANN.pdf . The statement connects these issues to customised immunity as a possible remedy, providing full details. This statement was posted on sub -group's list and discussed. Then during the public comment period (response to the questionnaire, pl see the corresponding ICANN page) many inputs once again raised important issues and linked them to customized immunity as a possible solution.... It is most shocking now at the end of the process to hear from the sub group's chair that customised immunity was always being proposed without showing the issues that it could remedy -- AND THAT WAS THE REASON IT NEVER GOT AN OFFICIAL SLOT FOR DISCUSSION. Greg, you must either disprove what I am saying here, and saying it with documented evidence, or withdraw your statement that undermines the large amount of work that so many of us did, and indeed the whole sub group's working..... We cannot let such false statements to be recorded as the historical records of this group's work, and the transcript of today's f2f meeting is supposed to go as a record annexed to the final report.. Our problem is; there was just too much prejudice, and people, including prominently the process heads/ chairs, were simply not listening to many us, they were tuned out even before the deliberative process begun!! This is not a consultative and participative process, this is something made to look like one.... Look forward to your response parminder sss

3 5

Fwd: Drafting Stress tests for Jurisdiction recommendations
by Kavouss Arasteh Oct. 27, 2017

Oct. 27, 2017

Dear Co Chair, Good moning to you and to all CCWG urther to the discussions took place at the last CCWG Plenary , ,please finad attached a copy of correspondence received from Steve DelBianco who has kindly prepared the attached draft of three Stress Test the principle of their need to be attached / ome efernced in the CCWG Report on the Jurisdiction and find the most appropriate modality to include them in the outcome of the Jurisdiction activities ,as appropriate. Pls kindly consider them and put thenm into the agenda of the CCWG F2F meeting for approval Regards Kavouss ----- Forwarded message ---------- From: Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh(a)gmail.com> Date: Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 7:33 PM Subject: Re: Drafting Stress tests for Jurisdiction recommendations To: Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org> Cc: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com>, Cheryl Langdon-Orr < langdonorr(a)gmail.com>, Thomas Rickert <thomas(a)rickert.net> Dear Steve Thank you very much for yr kind actions and effort covering Groso Modo the case Thus should be discussed and approved tomorrow before decisions being taken on the second reading Tks again Kavouss Sent from my iPhone On 26 Oct 2017, at 18:43, Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org> wrote: Kavouss, As we discussed, I have drafted 3 stress tests relevant to the sanctions recommendation in the latest Jurisdiction report. (attached). If you find this is helpful, you could circulate to the plenary for broader review. Regards, Steve — Steve DelBianco President & CEO NetChoice http://www.NetChoice.org <http://www.netchoice.org/> +1.703.615.6206 <(703)%20615-6206> <Stress Tests for WS2 Jurisdiction report [draft v1].pdf> <Stress Tests for WS2 Jurisdiction report [draft v1].docx>

2 1

Jurisdiction Subgroup. Draft Report. Statement of Brazil. Annex. To be annexed to the draft report. For consideration by the CCWG.
by Thiago Braz Jardim Oliveira Oct. 26, 2017

Oct. 26, 2017

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(a)icann.org [ws2-jurisdiction-bounces(a)icann.org] em nome de Greg Shatan [gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com] Enviado: quinta-feira, 12 de outubro de 2017 23:29 Para: accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org Cc: acct-staff(a)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(a)gmail.com<mailto: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(a)gmail.com<mailto: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

9 22

Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] [GAC] CCWG plenary. Jurisdiction Subgroup Draft Report - Minority viewpoint
by MSSI Secretariat Oct. 19, 2017

Oct. 19, 2017

Dear Jurisdiction Subgroup, Please see the following email sent to the list by a non-subscriber. FROM: y.elanskaya(a)minsvyaz.ru SUBJECT: RE: [GAC] CCWG plenary. Jurisdiction Subgroup Draft Report - Minority viewpoint RECEIVED: Thu Oct 19 13:45:50 2017 Dear all, Russia fully supports Brazil’s proposal. Furthermore, we would like to emphasize that the Subgroup Jurisdiction’s recommendations do not address our expectations for the solution of ICANN jurisdiction challenges and only partly could mitigate some risks but the absence of which makes the whole report unacceptable to us. Best regards, Yulia Elanskaya Deputy Director of International Cooperation Department Ministry of Telecom and Mass Communications of the Russian Federation With kind regards, Brenda Brewer, Projects & Operations Assistant Multistakeholder Strategy & Strategic Initiatives (MSSI) Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) [cid:image001.png@01D348DA.CD4AD420] Skype: brenda.brewer.icann Phone: 1-310-745-1107

1 0

Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] [CCWG-ACCT] Jurisdiction Subgroup Draft Report for CCWG-Accountability Plenary Review
by Seun Ojedeji Oct. 18, 2017

Oct. 18, 2017

Okay that's helpful information Milton. Thanks Sent from my mobile Kindly excuse brevity and typos On Oct 18, 2017 10:03 PM, "Mueller, Milton L" <milton(a)gatech.edu> wrote: Seun said: If I may, how does our recommendation serve as improvement from the status quo? I mean what category of applicants will start to feel the positive impact of our recommendation? The answer is that SDNs are a very small number of people who are singled out for sanctions (e.g., a known war criminal), whereas most sanctions apply to all nationals of the sanctioned country; e.g. all registrars, all registry applicants and all domain name registrants. So there is a huge improvement if sanctions are removed from ordinary domain name registrants but a few SDNs are excepted. Dr. Milton L Mueller Professor, School of Public Policy <http://spp.gatech.edu/> Georgia Institute of Technology Internet Governance Project http://internetgovernance.org/

1 0

Jurisdiction Subgroup Draft Report for CCWG-Accountability Plenary Review
by Greg Shatan Oct. 18, 2017

Oct. 18, 2017

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*

3 5

Plenary Reading of Jurisdiction Subgroup Draft Report
by Greg Shatan Oct. 18, 2017

Oct. 18, 2017

All, I'd like to remind you that at the upcoming CCWG-Accountability Plenary on October 18 at 19:00 UTC, there will be a *first reading of the draft recommendations*. If it passes this first reading, it will be presented for a second reading at the Face-to-face meeting on 27 October. If it fails to pass a second reading at the 27 October meeting, it cannot be included in the final report. If it fails to pass a first reading at the 18 October meeting it would require exceptional circumstances to have it pass a second reading at the 27 October meeting. Please attend the Plenary session so that your views are heard, and so you can hear the views of other members of the Plenary. Greg

4 4

Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] [CCWG-ACCT] Jurisdiction Subgroup. Draft Report. Statement of Brazil. Annex. To be annexed to the draft report. For consideration by the CCWG.
by Seun Ojedeji Oct. 18, 2017

Oct. 18, 2017

FWIW, I actually don't think a Yes or No response will be applicable to the questions as written. It could have been written as: Do you think that ICANN should seek a general OFAC license for DNS services? ...... Regards Sent from my mobile Kindly excuse brevity and typos On Oct 18, 2017 5:03 PM, "Kavouss Arasteh" <kavouss.arasteh(a)gmail.com> wrote: Dear All, This type of intergation is not legitimate Regards Kavouss On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 5:26 PM, Mueller, Milton L <milton(a)gatech.edu> wrote: > Parminder (and Thiago) > > I respond to this with a very simple set of questions. All of which admit > of a simple Yes or No answer: > > > > 1. Do you or do you not think that ICANN should seek a general OFAC > license for DNS services? > > 2. Do you or do you not want non-US registrars to be clearly told > by ICANN that the RAA does not by itself commit them to abiding by OFAC > sanctions? > > 3. Do you or do you not want to require ICANN to seek an OFAC > license for any (non-SDP) registrar who needs it? > > 4. Do you or do you not want there to be a choice of law addition > to the contracted parties’ contracts? > > > > If you answer No to all these question you are indeed disagreeing with the > subgroup recommendations, and you are de facto in favor of upholding the > status quo, because the status quo is the only actual alternative to the > consensus recommendations. > > > > Looking forward to your answers. > > > > --MM > > > > *From:* parminder [mailto:parminder@itforchange.net] > *Sent:* Tuesday, October 17, 2017 9:33 AM > *To:* Mueller, Milton L <milton(a)gatech.edu>; Thiago Braz Jardim Oliveira < > thiago.jardim(a)itamaraty.gov.br>; accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org > > *Cc:* acct-staff(a)icann.org; gac(a)icann.org; GAC <gac(a)gac.icann.org>; > ws2-jurisdiction <ws2-jurisdiction(a)icann.org> > *Subject:* Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Jurisdiction Subgroup. Draft Report. > Statement of Brazil. Annex. To be annexed to the draft report. For > consideration by the CCWG. > > > > > > > > On Monday 16 October 2017 11:18 PM, Mueller, Milton L wrote: > > By the way, after additional review of these “dissenting” materials I have > come up with an interesting finding: none of them actually disagree with > the recommendations we did come up with, and neither of them disputes that > there is consensus for the actual recommendations. They simply say that the > recommendations are not enough for them. > > > This is a wrong reading of what is a consensus. Consensus relates to a > whole set of recs, and the whole report, not parts of it. One may not > otherwise disagree, for instance, with a particular motherhood and apple > pie statement (they are meant not be disagreed with), but disagree with it > constituting the whole of recs or the report of a group. That would still > be an absence of consensus for that statement to be the rec of that group. > (Those who are involved with the Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation will > know how its final stages to develop a report suffers from a similar > dilemma.) > > A report is as significant in terms of what it does not say as what it > says...... If there is no consensus on changing the status quo, there isnt > one on keeping it either. And the dissonance is so very significant that > some members would want to dissociate from some weak formulations that have > been compiled as agreed outcomes of the group, which simply do not address > key issues of the mandate given to the group. > > Let me try to explain it another way. Lets say that there has been a great > humanitarian crisis owing to human/ political reasons and a committee is > formed to report on its facts and the required action by the world > community. If some members try to develop a report that greatly > under-reports the nature and extent of the calamity (as is done in this > jurisdiction sub group's report regarding facts of the many very > significant problems about continued US jurisdiction over a key global > governance function) and comes up with some very weak mitigating measures, > like saying that for the next many weeks free water supplies should to > maintained for the whole area, others members may dissent with that report, > without necessarily being against the "water supply" part.... They are apt > to disassociate from and condemn the whole report, doing which would > certainly be a meaningful exercise, in putting emphasis on what the > committee was abdicating from rather than what it was recommending. Similar > is the situation with our dissent notes with respect to the jurisdiction > sub-group's report.. > > parminder > > > > > > So what the dissent is about, really, is that they could not achieve > consensus on their own position regarding a much broader take on > jurisdiction and immunity. And yet we all know that their position could > never achieve consensus. So their disputing the consensus basis of this > report amounts to a block what most of us could agree on > > > > *From:* ws2-jurisdiction-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounc > es(a)icann.org <ws2-jurisdiction-bounces(a)icann.org>] *On Behalf Of * > parminder > *Sent:* Monday, October 16, 2017 3:40 AM > *To:* Thiago Braz Jardim Oliveira <thiago.jardim(a)itamaraty.gov.br> > <thiago.jardim(a)itamaraty.gov.br>; accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org > *Cc:* acct-staff(a)icann.org; gac(a)icann.org; GAC <gac(a)gac.icann.org> > <gac(a)gac.icann.org>; ws2-jurisdiction <ws2-jurisdiction(a)icann.org> > <ws2-jurisdiction(a)icann.org> > *Subject:* Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Jurisdiction Subgroup. Draft Report. > Statement of Brazil. Annex. To be annexed to the draft report. For > consideration by the CCWG. > > > > Dear All > > Enclosed is the complete document of my dissenting opinion, which now > includes part 2 as well (with some modifications in part 1) as a single > document. Please ignore the earlier submitted document. > > This is for CCWG's consideration. Also for jurisdiction sub-group, > assuming that it continues to function. > > Best regards > > parminder > > > > On Sunday 15 October 2017 11:51 PM, parminder wrote: > > Dear All > > I fully support the excellent "statement of Brazil", which makes the > required point very well. The sub-group should consider the draft > recommendations made in the statement. In default, the CCWG should directly > consider them. > > My own dissenting opinion is enclosed. It is in two parts, part 1 is about > what was the group's mandate to do but it failed to do. This part first > expresses support to Brazil's statement, and then makes additional points, > detailing how there has been a miscarriage of due process, and thus > justifying why Brazil's draft recs must be considered, in the required > elaborate manner. Part one is enclosed herewith. > > Part two will present some comments on and disagreements with regard to > the two sets of draft recs that have been submitted on the sub-group's > behalf. I am still to write them, so allow me to submit them in the next 12 > hours, which will still be the weekend in some parts of the world, and thus > within the deadline I hope. > > Best regards, parminder > > > > On Sunday 15 October 2017 06:43 AM, Thiago Braz Jardim Oliveira 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(a)icann.org [ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@ican > n.org] em nome de Greg Shatan [gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com] > *Enviado:* quinta-feira, 12 de outubro de 2017 23:29 > *Para:* accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org > *Cc:* acct-staff(a)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(a)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(a)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* > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list > > Ws2-jurisdiction(a)icann.org > > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list > > Ws2-jurisdiction(a)icann.org > > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list > Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community > > _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

1 0

CCWG plenary. Jurisdiction Subgroup Draft Report - Minority viewpoint
by Benedicto Fonseca Filho Oct. 18, 2017

Oct. 18, 2017

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 by E.F.A. Project and is believed to be clean.

2 1

SGT Jurisdiction. Final Report. Statement from Brazil.
by Benedicto Fonseca Filho Oct. 16, 2017

Oct. 16, 2017

Dear Greg, Dear all, Could you please make sure the message below appears in the e-mail you will send to the CCWG plenary with the report? "Brazil expresses its opposition to the "Final Report" on Jurisdiction that is being submitted to the CCWG plenary. The report does not address the concerns Brazil and others repeatedly raised during the work of the subgroup, nor does it duly take into account the contributions Brazil and others timely submitted on jurisdictional issues that motivated the launching of Work Stream 2. Furthermore, the report falls short of the objectives envisaged for Work Stream 2 – in particular the need to ensure that ICANN is accountable towards all stakeholders –, by not tackling the issue of ICANN's subjection to US jurisdiction, as well as leaving untouched the unsatisfactory situation where US authorities (tribunals, enforcement agencies, regulatory bodies, etc.) can possibly interfere with the activities ICANN performs in the global public interest. As we have stated from day one of Work Stream 1 back in 2014, Brazil cannot accept this state of affairs – where Governments are not placed on an equal footing vis-à-vis the country of incorporation as regards their ability to participate in ICANN's management of Internet global resources –, which is not in line with the rules and principles embodied in the Tunis Agenda for the Information Society nor with the fundamental tenets of the multi-stakeholder approach, which we uphold and support. In this respect, Brazil recalls that its non-opposition to the conclusion and outcome of Work Stream 1 was made in good faith based on the understanding that a satisfactory settlement of the jurisdictional issues, as identified during the transition process, would be addressed in a satisfactory manner. We are saddened to notice that the report does not live up to that expectation. 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, as well as the fact that many views and contributions made during the process – including in some cases our own - were systematically disregarded or ignored, with no effort being made in order to build consensus and bridge differences with respect to these views and contributions. Brazil will submit within the agreed deadline a document to be attached to report with the points we consider should have been included therein." Best regards, Benedicto ________________________________ De: ws2-jurisdiction-bounces(a)icann.org [ws2-jurisdiction-bounces(a)icann.org] em nome de Greg Shatan [gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com] Enviado: quarta-feira, 11 de outubro de 2017 15:42 Para: ws2-jurisdiction Cc: acct-staff(a)icann.org Assunto: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Documents for Review and Approval in Today's Meeting All, I attach the current drafts of the Draft Report (including the OFAC Recommendations) and the Choice of Law and Venue Recommendation, as Word and PDF documents. The current drafts are also available as Google Docs. In order to keep the drafts synchronized, I have changed the sharing status of the Draft Report to "view only" and copied the Choice of Law and Venue draft into a new Google Doc, with view only status. Links are below: Draft Report: MailScanner has detected definite fraud in the website at "docs.google.com". Do not trust this website: https://docs.google.com/document/d/135c03wFSIlz1Lqdv6Tte8sw7tMinsQEgy0CoNtR…<https://docs.google.com/document/d/135c03wFSIlz1Lqdv6Tte8sw7tMinsQEgy0CoNtR…> Choice of Law and Venue: MailScanner has detected definite fraud in the website at "docs.google.com". Do not trust this website: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Z7A233KiPQV2ijVgWzxWOv3eePTy9rSPIMFxbiZ…<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Z7A233KiPQV2ijVgWzxWOv3eePTy9rSPIMFxbiZ…> There is only one suggested change to look at at in the Draft Report. There are a number of suggested changes in the Choice of Law and Venue Recommendation. Unless the Subgroup decides otherwise, these changes will be made final after the meeting. (Note that other text is still open for suggested changes even if not marked in the document, but these changes will need to be finalized on the call. There are also a number of "Comments" in the documents. These are left in so you can see them, but they will be taken out when the document is finalized for submission to the Plenary. (Note: It's easier to see the comments on the PDF but some are truncated. In the Word doc, you'll need to click on each one to expand it. It's easiest to see them all in the Google Doc.) THESE DOCUMENTS MUST BE SENT TO THE PLENARY BY 23:59 UTC TODAY IN ORDER TO BE PART OF THE CCWG REPORT. I look forward to our upcoming call. Greg

3 3