- Ws2-jurisdiction - lists.icann.org

Jurisdiction Subgroup Report After Second Reading
by Greg Shatan March 10, 2018

March 10, 2018

All, Here is the Jurisdiction Subgroup report after the Second Reading, reflecting the change made during the Second Reading. Thank you all! Greg

2 1

Jurisdiction Red Line for Second Reading
by Greg Shatan March 9, 2018

March 9, 2018

All, This includes the proposed change discussed this morning We'll need to confirm that I've accurately captured the end point of that discussion. I also did some clean-up regarding "qualified" and "agreed." Greg

3 2

Jurisdiction Subgroup Revised Draft Report for Submission to Plenary
by Greg Shatan March 2, 2018

March 2, 2018

All, Attached is a PDF version of the Subgroup Report for Submission to the CCWG Plenary. I will send a Word copy later, due to technical difficulties. Please note that on the consensus call for the two proposed texts at Note 4.1, the Consensus was for “no change.” As a result, neither proposed text is included in the Report. Thank you all for your hard work and difficult compromises. I look forward to seeing many of you in San Juan. Greg

1 0

CONSENSUS CALL ON NOTE 4.1 TEXTS: Almost Final Draft Report for Review before Submission to Plenary on 2 March
by Greg Shatan March 2, 2018

March 2, 2018

All, We need to come to consensus on how to deal with the two proposed texts resulting from "Note 4.1." I've reviewed the captioning, chat, email list & draft to figure out the most appropriate way forward, and a clear result emerges. On this point only, I'm extending the deadline to *20:00 UTC*. (Any other points, the deadline is still 18:00 UTC.) The bottom line is this: *Unless one or both texts ("as is" or with agreed modifications) emerges as a consensus choice (i.e., "a position where ... most agree") between now (06:30 UTC) and 20:00 UTC, neither text will be in the Draft Report.* * Please quickly indicate your support for one of the following alternatives:1. Support first proposal only.2. Support second proposal only.3. Support both proposals.4. No change; neither text will be in the Report. Thank you.* The draft report is attached in Word and PDF. In addition, I found it helpful to pull together a detailed timeline to best understand where we are and how we got here. The long version of the timeline is attached. The chat and captioning are here <https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=79434430>. The short version of the timeline is this: - We discussed Note 4.1 on the call. The objective was identified as "showing the public that we took their comments into account." We ran through various alternatives, which had little support and a few objections. I noted that nothing was jelling. - Based on the various alternatives I suggested a "middle ground." - There seemed to be support for this approach and I said "I think we can take that as the result of 4.1." There was no objection and we moved on to the rest of the call. - As the call was winding up, Thiago wrote in chat, "On the outstanding point 4.1, which is outstanding I understand, may I try to lend you a hand in finding that delicate balance?" and provided some text. The first part was largely the same as text that was objected to earlier in the call; the second part was new. - The call was breaking up and there was no discussion of this suggestion, though Kavouss and Jorge supported it in the chat. We noted that the proposal could be reviewed on the list. - In the Draft Report, I included both proposed texts -- the text I prepared based on the "middle ground" discussion in the group and the text that Thiago put in the chat. Procedurally, we are in a somewhat muddled position. First, this was not actually an outstanding point at the end of the call, so I was mistaken in treating it as if it were. Second, while the Draft Report makes it look like both proposals could end up in the Report, the second suggestion (from the end of the call) was intended to be a replacement for the first one (identified as the "result of 4.1" earlier in the call). A hyper-technical view would be that the second suggestion was out of order and should not be considered. We would then have one suggestion and life would be simpler. Another hyper-technical view would be that the suggestions were intended to be alternatives and must be treated as a "one or the other (or neither)" decision. I think it's simpler (and less technical) to look at it this way: We have two proposals. Both are possibilities. Neither text was really discussed on the call. The first text was based on a conceptual understanding that seemed to get traction, but the text wasn't discussed. The second text was suggested at the very end of the call and wasn't discussed either. We have less than 24 hours before this Draft Report must be submitted, and it must be the consensus view of the Subgroup. With this lack of consideration, neither text can claim to be the consensus view of the Subgroup and a "no objections" approach would be inappropriate. *As such, unless one or both texts ("as is" or with agreed modifications) emerges as a consensus choice (i.e., "a position where ... most agree") between now (06:30 UTC) and 22:00 UTC, neither text will be in the Draft Report.* *Please quickly indicate your support for one of the following alternatives:* *1. Support first proposal only.* *2. Support second proposal only.* *3. Support both proposals.* *4. No change; neither text will be in the Report.* Greg On Thu, Mar 1, 2018 at 12:07 PM Raphaël BEAUREGARD-LACROIX < raphael.beauregardlacroix(a)sciencespo.fr> wrote: > Dear all, > > Would it be possible to keep both the first (generic) statement *and *the > second, more specific one? While it is slightly repetitive, the second can > serve as an example to the first. > > Best, > > > > 2018-03-01 15:40 GMT+01:00 <Jorge.Cancio(a)bakom.admin.ch>: > >> Dear Greg and all, >> >> >> >> If I understand your email below correctly, and consistent with what was >> agreed yesterday, you are consulting the list on the latest text that >> Thiago proposed on note 4.1, i.e. the following addition, right?: >> >> >> >> “The late suggestion added to the report that “Further Discussions of >> Jurisdiction-Related Concerns” are needed, in particular on jurisdictional >> immunities, found echo in several comments subsequently received, but these >> comments did not bring any changes to the report, nor could they be >> considered in detail, on the understanding that the existing support for >> “further discussions” to address unresolved concerns, including in other >> fora, had already been acknowledged” >> >> >> >> As said yesterday I have no objections to such an addition. >> >> >> >> Best regards >> >> >> >> Jorge >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> *Von:* Ws2-jurisdiction [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org] *Im >> Auftrag von *Greg Shatan >> *Gesendet:* Donnerstag, 1. März 2018 00:22 >> *An:* ws2-jurisdiction <ws2-jurisdiction(a)icann.org> >> *Betreff:* [Ws2-jurisdiction] Fwd: PLEASE REVIEW: Almost Final Draft >> Report for Review before Submission to Plenary on 2 March >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> All, >> >> >> >> Attached in Word and PDF is the almost final Draft Report, based on >> today’s call. This is also available in Google Docs at >> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1rdMJyvZdyN9TApT6gx_ >> 3NwpdvIL7YKHEUD7tNfLf6hU/edit?usp=sharing. >> >> >> >> Please review and comment. I have marked in the margin the sections >> corresponding to the “Notes” in the chart distributed before today’s call. >> >> >> >> In particular please review and respond to the suggested text on page 12 >> at the end of the “Overview of the Work of the Subgroup.” There are two >> proposed additions that grew out of Note 4.1. The first received broad >> support on the call without noted objections. >> >> >> >> The second received both support and objections on the call. Since there >> was no clear path forward from the call, it is important that as many >> participants as possible give this careful consideration and provide their >> views on this second proposed addition. This text reads as follows: >> >> >> >> The late suggestion added to the report that “Further Discussions of >> Jurisdiction-Related Concerns” are needed, in particular on jurisdictional >> immunities, found echo in several comments subsequently received, but these >> comments did not bring any changes to the report, nor could they be >> considered in detail, on the understanding that the existing support for >> “further discussions” to address unresolved concerns, including in other >> fora, had already been acknowledged. >> >> >> >> I look forward to hearing from you all, with regard to the report as a >> whole and any specific aspects, in particular the proposed text above. >> >> >> >> Since the final draft must be submitted no later than 23:59 UTC on 2 >> March, I am setting *a deadline of 18:00 UTC on 2 March* for all >> responses. >> >> >> >> Thank you! >> >> >> >> Greg >> >> >> >> >> _________________________________________________________________ >> This message is being sent from a Law Firm and may contain CONFIDENTIAL >> or PRIVILEGED information. If you are not the intended recipient, do not >> print, copy or distribute this message or any attachments. Advise the >> sender immediately by reply e-mail, and delete this message and attachments >> without retaining a copy. >> >> *Disclaimer* >> >> The information contained in this communication from the sender is >> confidential. It is intended solely for use by the recipient and others >> authorized to receive it. If you are not the recipient, you are hereby >> notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or taking action in >> relation of the contents of this information is strictly prohibited and may >> be unlawful. >> >> This email has been scanned for viruses and malware, and may have been >> automatically archived by *Mimecast Ltd*, an innovator in Software as a >> Service (SaaS) for business. Providing a *safer* and *more useful* place >> for your human generated data. Specializing in; Security, archiving and >> compliance. To find out more Click Here >> <http://www.mimecast.com/products/>. >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list >> Ws2-jurisdiction(a)icann.org >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction >> >> > > > -- > Raphaël Beauregard-Lacroix > LinkedIn > <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rapha%C3%ABl-beauregard-lacroix-88733786/> - > @rbl0012 <https://twitter.com/rbl0112> >

8 7

Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] CONSENSUS CALL ON NOTE 4.1 TEXTS: Almost Final Draft Report for Review before Submission to Plenary on 2 March
by Cheryl Langdon-Orr March 2, 2018

March 2, 2018

I was hoping for clear "middle ground text" but failing that I believe my balance approach means supported for option 3, both proposals to be published and seek any feedback from the Community during Public Comment. On Mar 2, 2018 18:15, "Arasteh" <kavouss.arasteh(a)gmail.com> wrote: Dear All I have supported Thiago proposal as also supported by Jorge. I therefore maintain my support Regards Kavouss Sent from my iPhone On 2 Mar 2018, at 07:45, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com> wrote: All, We need to come to consensus on how to deal with the two proposed texts resulting from "Note 4.1." I've reviewed the captioning, chat, email list & draft to figure out the most appropriate way forward, and a clear result emerges. On this point only, I'm extending the deadline to *20:00 UTC*. (Any other points, the deadline is still 18:00 UTC.) The bottom line is this: *Unless one or both texts ("as is" or with agreed modifications) emerges as a consensus choice (i.e., "a position where ... most agree") between now (06:30 UTC) and 20:00 UTC, neither text will be in the Draft Report.* * Please quickly indicate your support for one of the following alternatives:1. Support first proposal only.2. Support second proposal only.3. Support both proposals.4. No change; neither text will be in the Report. Thank you.* The draft report is attached in Word and PDF. In addition, I found it helpful to pull together a detailed timeline to best understand where we are and how we got here. The long version of the timeline is attached. The chat and captioning are here <https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=79434430>. The short version of the timeline is this: - We discussed Note 4.1 on the call. The objective was identified as "showing the public that we took their comments into account." We ran through various alternatives, which had little support and a few objections. I noted that nothing was jelling. - Based on the various alternatives I suggested a "middle ground." - There seemed to be support for this approach and I said "I think we can take that as the result of 4.1." There was no objection and we moved on to the rest of the call. - As the call was winding up, Thiago wrote in chat, "On the outstanding point 4.1, which is outstanding I understand, may I try to lend you a hand in finding that delicate balance?" and provided some text. The first part was largely the same as text that was objected to earlier in the call; the second part was new. - The call was breaking up and there was no discussion of this suggestion, though Kavouss and Jorge supported it in the chat. We noted that the proposal could be reviewed on the list. - In the Draft Report, I included both proposed texts -- the text I prepared based on the "middle ground" discussion in the group and the text that Thiago put in the chat. Procedurally, we are in a somewhat muddled position. First, this was not actually an outstanding point at the end of the call, so I was mistaken in treating it as if it were. Second, while the Draft Report makes it look like both proposals could end up in the Report, the second suggestion (from the end of the call) was intended to be a replacement for the first one (identified as the "result of 4.1" earlier in the call). A hyper-technical view would be that the second suggestion was out of order and should not be considered. We would then have one suggestion and life would be simpler. Another hyper-technical view would be that the suggestions were intended to be alternatives and must be treated as a "one or the other (or neither)" decision. I think it's simpler (and less technical) to look at it this way: We have two proposals. Both are possibilities. Neither text was really discussed on the call. The first text was based on a conceptual understanding that seemed to get traction, but the text wasn't discussed. The second text was suggested at the very end of the call and wasn't discussed either. We have less than 24 hours before this Draft Report must be submitted, and it must be the consensus view of the Subgroup. With this lack of consideration, neither text can claim to be the consensus view of the Subgroup and a "no objections" approach would be inappropriate. *As such, unless one or both texts ("as is" or with agreed modifications) emerges as a consensus choice (i.e., "a position where ... most agree") between now (06:30 UTC) and 22:00 UTC, neither text will be in the Draft Report.* *Please quickly indicate your support for one of the following alternatives:* *1. Support first proposal only.* *2. Support second proposal only.* *3. Support both proposals.* *4. No change; neither text will be in the Report.* Greg On Thu, Mar 1, 2018 at 12:07 PM Raphaël BEAUREGARD-LACROIX < raphael.beauregardlacroix(a)sciencespo.fr> wrote: > Dear all, > > Would it be possible to keep both the first (generic) statement *and *the > second, more specific one? While it is slightly repetitive, the second can > serve as an example to the first. > > Best, > > > > 2018-03-01 15:40 GMT+01:00 <Jorge.Cancio(a)bakom.admin.ch>: > >> Dear Greg and all, >> >> >> >> If I understand your email below correctly, and consistent with what was >> agreed yesterday, you are consulting the list on the latest text that >> Thiago proposed on note 4.1, i.e. the following addition, right?: >> >> >> >> “The late suggestion added to the report that “Further Discussions of >> Jurisdiction-Related Concerns” are needed, in particular on jurisdictional >> immunities, found echo in several comments subsequently received, but these >> comments did not bring any changes to the report, nor could they be >> considered in detail, on the understanding that the existing support for >> “further discussions” to address unresolved concerns, including in other >> fora, had already been acknowledged” >> >> >> >> As said yesterday I have no objections to such an addition. >> >> >> >> Best regards >> >> >> >> Jorge >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> *Von:* Ws2-jurisdiction [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org] *Im >> Auftrag von *Greg Shatan >> *Gesendet:* Donnerstag, 1. März 2018 00:22 >> *An:* ws2-jurisdiction <ws2-jurisdiction(a)icann.org> >> *Betreff:* [Ws2-jurisdiction] Fwd: PLEASE REVIEW: Almost Final Draft >> Report for Review before Submission to Plenary on 2 March >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> All, >> >> >> >> Attached in Word and PDF is the almost final Draft Report, based on >> today’s call. This is also available in Google Docs at >> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1rdMJyvZdyN9TApT6gx_3Nwpd >> vIL7YKHEUD7tNfLf6hU/edit?usp=sharing. >> >> >> >> Please review and comment. I have marked in the margin the sections >> corresponding to the “Notes” in the chart distributed before today’s call. >> >> >> >> In particular please review and respond to the suggested text on page 12 >> at the end of the “Overview of the Work of the Subgroup.” There are two >> proposed additions that grew out of Note 4.1. The first received broad >> support on the call without noted objections. >> >> >> >> The second received both support and objections on the call. Since there >> was no clear path forward from the call, it is important that as many >> participants as possible give this careful consideration and provide their >> views on this second proposed addition. This text reads as follows: >> >> >> >> The late suggestion added to the report that “Further Discussions of >> Jurisdiction-Related Concerns” are needed, in particular on jurisdictional >> immunities, found echo in several comments subsequently received, but these >> comments did not bring any changes to the report, nor could they be >> considered in detail, on the understanding that the existing support for >> “further discussions” to address unresolved concerns, including in other >> fora, had already been acknowledged. >> >> >> >> I look forward to hearing from you all, with regard to the report as a >> whole and any specific aspects, in particular the proposed text above. >> >> >> >> Since the final draft must be submitted no later than 23:59 UTC on 2 >> March, I am setting *a deadline of 18:00 UTC on 2 March* for all >> responses. >> >> >> >> Thank you! >> >> >> >> Greg >> >> >> >> >> _________________________________________________________________ >> This message is being sent from a Law Firm and may contain CONFIDENTIAL >> or PRIVILEGED information. If you are not the intended recipient, do not >> print, copy or distribute this message or any attachments. Advise the >> sender immediately by reply e-mail, and delete this message and attachments >> without retaining a copy. >> >> *Disclaimer* >> >> The information contained in this communication from the sender is >> confidential. It is intended solely for use by the recipient and others >> authorized to receive it. If you are not the recipient, you are hereby >> notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or taking action in >> relation of the contents of this information is strictly prohibited and may >> be unlawful. >> >> This email has been scanned for viruses and malware, and may have been >> automatically archived by *Mimecast Ltd*, an innovator in Software as a >> Service (SaaS) for business. Providing a *safer* and *more useful* place >> for your human generated data. Specializing in; Security, archiving and >> compliance. To find out more Click Here >> <http://www.mimecast.com/products/>. >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list >> Ws2-jurisdiction(a)icann.org >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction >> >> > > > -- > Raphaël Beauregard-Lacroix > LinkedIn > <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rapha%C3%ABl-beauregard-lacroix-88733786/> - > @rbl0012 <https://twitter.com/rbl0112> > <Note 4.1 Timeline.docx> <CCWG-Accountability-WS2-Jurisdiction-Final Draft v1.2.7.docx> <CCWG-Accountability-WS2-Jurisdiction-Final Draft v1.2.7.pdf> _______________________________________________ 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

6 7

Almost Final Draft Report for Review before Submission to Plenary on 2 March
by Bernard Turcotte March 1, 2018

March 1, 2018

All, Simply a reminder that there is now less than 24 hours to the Friday 2 March 1800 UTC deadline for submitting comments. Bernard Turcotte ICANN Staff Support to the CCWG-Accountability-WS2 On Thu, Mar 1, 2018 at 12:07 PM, Raphaël BEAUREGARD-LACROIX < raphael.beauregardlacroix(a)sciencespo.fr> wrote: > Dear all, > > Would it be possible to keep both the first (generic) statement *and *the > second, more specific one? While it is slightly repetitive, the second can > serve as an example to the first. > > Best, > > > > 2018-03-01 15:40 GMT+01:00 <Jorge.Cancio(a)bakom.admin.ch>: > >> Dear Greg and all, >> >> >> >> If I understand your email below correctly, and consistent with what was >> agreed yesterday, you are consulting the list on the latest text that >> Thiago proposed on note 4.1, i.e. the following addition, right?: >> >> >> >> “The late suggestion added to the report that “Further Discussions of >> Jurisdiction-Related Concerns” are needed, in particular on jurisdictional >> immunities, found echo in several comments subsequently received, but these >> comments did not bring any changes to the report, nor could they be >> considered in detail, on the understanding that the existing support for >> “further discussions” to address unresolved concerns, including in other >> fora, had already been acknowledged” >> >> >> >> As said yesterday I have no objections to such an addition. >> >> >> >> Best regards >> >> >> >> Jorge >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> *Von:* Ws2-jurisdiction [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org] *Im >> Auftrag von *Greg Shatan >> *Gesendet:* Donnerstag, 1. März 2018 00:22 >> *An:* ws2-jurisdiction <ws2-jurisdiction(a)icann.org> >> *Betreff:* [Ws2-jurisdiction] Fwd: PLEASE REVIEW: Almost Final Draft >> Report for Review before Submission to Plenary on 2 March >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> All, >> >> >> >> Attached in Word and PDF is the almost final Draft Report, based on >> today’s call. This is also available in Google Docs at >> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1rdMJyvZdyN9TApT6gx_3Nwpd >> vIL7YKHEUD7tNfLf6hU/edit?usp=sharing. >> >> >> >> Please review and comment. I have marked in the margin the sections >> corresponding to the “Notes” in the chart distributed before today’s call. >> >> >> >> In particular please review and respond to the suggested text on page 12 >> at the end of the “Overview of the Work of the Subgroup.” There are two >> proposed additions that grew out of Note 4.1. The first received broad >> support on the call without noted objections. >> >> >> >> The second received both support and objections on the call. Since there >> was no clear path forward from the call, it is important that as many >> participants as possible give this careful consideration and provide their >> views on this second proposed addition. This text reads as follows: >> >> >> >> The late suggestion added to the report that “Further Discussions of >> Jurisdiction-Related Concerns” are needed, in particular on jurisdictional >> immunities, found echo in several comments subsequently received, but these >> comments did not bring any changes to the report, nor could they be >> considered in detail, on the understanding that the existing support for >> “further discussions” to address unresolved concerns, including in other >> fora, had already been acknowledged. >> >> >> >> I look forward to hearing from you all, with regard to the report as a >> whole and any specific aspects, in particular the proposed text above. >> >> >> >> Since the final draft must be submitted no later than 23:59 UTC on 2 >> March, I am setting *a deadline of 18:00 UTC on 2 March* for all >> responses. >> >> >> >> Thank you! >> >> >> >> Greg >> >> >> >> >> _________________________________________________________________ >> This message is being sent from a Law Firm and may contain CONFIDENTIAL >> or PRIVILEGED information. If you are not the intended recipient, do not >> print, copy or distribute this message or any attachments. Advise the >> sender immediately by reply e-mail, and delete this message and attachments >> without retaining a copy. >> >> *Disclaimer* >> >> The information contained in this communication from the sender is >> confidential. It is intended solely for use by the recipient and others >> authorized to receive it. If you are not the recipient, you are hereby >> notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or taking action in >> relation of the contents of this information is strictly prohibited and may >> be unlawful. >> >> This email has been scanned for viruses and malware, and may have been >> automatically archived by *Mimecast Ltd*, an innovator in Software as a >> Service (SaaS) for business. Providing a *safer* and *more useful* place >> for your human generated data. Specializing in; Security, archiving and >> compliance. To find out more Click Here >> <http://www.mimecast.com/products/>. >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list >> Ws2-jurisdiction(a)icann.org >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction >> >> > > > -- > Raphaël Beauregard-Lacroix > LinkedIn > <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rapha%C3%ABl-beauregard-lacroix-88733786/> - > @rbl0012 <https://twitter.com/rbl0112> > > _______________________________________________ > Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list > Ws2-jurisdiction(a)icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction > >

1 0

Fwd: PLEASE REVIEW: Almost Final Draft Report for Review before Submission to Plenary on 2 March
by Greg Shatan March 1, 2018

March 1, 2018

All, Attached in Word and PDF is the almost final Draft Report, based on today’s call. This is also available in Google Docs at https://docs.google.com/document/d/1rdMJyvZdyN9TApT6gx_3NwpdvIL7YKHEUD7tNfL…. Please review and comment. I have marked in the margin the sections corresponding to the “Notes” in the chart distributed before today’s call. In particular please review and respond to the suggested text on page 12 at the end of the “Overview of the Work of the Subgroup.” There are two proposed additions that grew out of Note 4.1. The first received broad support on the call without noted objections. The second received both support and objections on the call. Since there was no clear path forward from the call, it is important that as many participants as possible give this careful consideration and provide their views on this second proposed addition. This text reads as follows: The late suggestion added to the report that “Further Discussions of Jurisdiction-Related Concerns” are needed, in particular on jurisdictional immunities, found echo in several comments subsequently received, but these comments did not bring any changes to the report, nor could they be considered in detail, on the understanding that the existing support for “further discussions” to address unresolved concerns, including in other fora, had already been acknowledged. I look forward to hearing from you all, with regard to the report as a whole and any specific aspects, in particular the proposed text above. Since the final draft must be submitted no later than 23:59 UTC on 2 March, I am setting *a deadline of 18:00 UTC on 2 March* for all responses. Thank you! Greg _________________________________________________________________ This message is being sent from a Law Firm and may contain CONFIDENTIAL or PRIVILEGED information. If you are not the intended recipient, do not print, copy or distribute this message or any attachments. Advise the sender immediately by reply e-mail, and delete this message and attachments without retaining a copy. *Disclaimer* The information contained in this communication from the sender is confidential. It is intended solely for use by the recipient and others authorized to receive it. If you are not the recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or taking action in relation of the contents of this information is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. This email has been scanned for viruses and malware, and may have been automatically archived by *Mimecast Ltd*, an innovator in Software as a Service (SaaS) for business. Providing a *safer* and *more useful* place for your human generated data. Specializing in; Security, archiving and compliance. To find out more Click Here <http://www.mimecast.com/products/>.

3 2

Recordings, DAIRs, Raw Caption Notes for Jurisdiction Subgroup Meeting #57 | 28 February 2018
by MSSI Secretariat Feb. 28, 2018

Feb. 28, 2018

Hello all, Please find the recordings, Decisions, Action Items, Requests (DAIRs), and raw caption notes for CCWG Accountability WS2 Jurisdiction Subgroup Meeting #57 – 28 February 2018 posted at https://community.icann.org/x/vhK8B The transcript will be posted on when it becomes available (usually in 3 to 5 business days after the call). A copy of the DAIRs and raw caption notes may be found below. Thank you. With kind regards, Brenda Brewer, Projects & Operations Assistant Multistakeholder Strategy & Strategic Initiatives (MSSI) Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) [cid:image001.png@01D3B0B1.56B81180] Action Items: none Raw Captioning Notes Disclaimer: This rough edit transcript, which may contain missing, misspelled or paraphrased words, is only provided for your immediate review and is not certified as verbatim and is not to be cited in any way. * Word Doc<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/79434430/CCWG-Accountabili…> * PDF<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/79434430/CCWG-Accountabili…> Decisions: * Note 1 * Revised text added and moved to footnote, stating “In the future, if ICANN is subject to other similar sanctions (e.g., similar in scope, type and effect and with similar methods of relief for entities not specifically sanctioned), the spirit of these recommendations should guide ICANN’s approach.” * Friendly amendment - Instead of saying "if ICANN is subject to similar sanctions", I believe it would be more appropriate to say "if ICANN's activities are affected by similar sanctions”. * Agreed with friendly amendment * Note 2 * The Report has been changed to recommend that the Registry (or Registrar) choose from among the choice of law options on the “menu,” i.e., the choice would not be negotiated with ICANN. * Agreed * Note 3 * This is a general note that section describing the work of the Subgroup after the draft was submitted to the plenary for the Abu Dhabi meeting has now been “accepted” into the document. * Agreed * Note 4 * In the “Overview of the Work of the Subgroup,” the following has been added: * As a result of these discussions [in Abu Dhabi], the section “Further Discussions of Jurisdiction-Related Concerns” was added the draft Report, suggesting a path forward for these concerns beyond the CCWG-Accountability through a further other multistakeholder process. * Agreed as amended in meeting per Thiago and Greg suggestions. * Note 4.1 * This suggestion has evolved somewhat. Thiago earlier suggested that “Comments by other countries in support for the further jurisdiction-related discussions, in particular immunities, should be specifically referenced." * After further discussion, Thiago’s revised suggestion appears to be: * Comments by other countries in support for the further jurisdiction-related discussions, in particular immunities, should be specifically referenced. * it would be fair to also explicitly give similar satisfaction to the contrary voices * These are not really contrary to Brazil’s dissent, which should be made explicit in the report as part of the subgroup’s response to the comments received.” No change has been made to the Report based on this Note, as it is unclear what the level of support for this plan. The Subgroup needs to determine if this addition should be made and if so, how. * Concept agreement to some new words which will be suggested by GS. · Note 5 * This text is proposed to be added at the end of the recommendations on sanctions: * When implementing each of the recommendations in this section, their utmost importance to ICANN in carrying out its mission and facilitating global access to DNS should be considered. Taking into account this importance, the implementation phase should start as soon as possible, but in no event later than six months after approval by the ICANN Board.” * Agreed · Note 6 * This is a general note that the Stress Tests have now been “accepted” into the Report document. * Agreed. · Note 7 * A “friendly amendment” was made on last week’s call to Stress Test 1 in “Proposed Accountability Measures,” to clarify that any registrar’s ability to “accept domain registration requests from citizens of any country” is still “subject to limitations and obligations due to applicable law and registry restrictions.” * Agreed without “and registry restrictions”. Requests: * GS will circulate draft final to list by 1800 UTC today and comments need to be provided ASAP as the deadline for submitting the final recommendations is Friday 2 March 2359 UTC.

1 0

Latest Revised Draft of Jurisdiction Subgroup Report
by Greg Shatan Feb. 28, 2018

Feb. 28, 2018

All: Attached is a further revised version of the Jurisdiction subgroup report, in both Word and PDF. This draft is also available on Google Docs at https://docs.google.com/document/d/1rdMJyvZdyN9TApT6gx_3NwpdvIL7YKHEUD7tNfL… This latest draft reflects changes made over the course of the day, primarily: *NOTE 2:* This has been revised so that the Report recommends that the Registry (or Registrar) choose from among the choice of law options on the “menu,” i.e., the choice would not be negotiated with the ICANN. This is opposite to the way this issue was presented in the immediate prior draft. *NOTE 4:* In the “Overview of the Work of the Subgroup,” the following has been added, in response to Thiago’s suggestion: As a result of these discussions [in Abu Dhabi], the section “Further Discussions of Jurisdiction-Related Concerns” was added the draft Report, suggesting a path forward for these concerns beyond the CCWG-Accountability through a further other multistakeholder process. *NOTE 4.1:* Thiago has since clarified that his suggestion is that “Comments by other countries [not just France] in support for the further jurisdiction-related discussions, in particular immunities, should be specifically referenced." Steve Delbianco, responding to the earlier formulation, stated: “I do not understand the justification to single-out one comment (that of France) among so many that we received and considered. Pending an explanation of that justification, I would not support a note that calls attention to just one comment.” Thiago, then replied: “On Note 4, it is a fair point, and I do not wish to push it further. My main point was as I clarified, to add text reflecting the subsequent addition to the report of the “further discussions on jurisdiction-related concerns”, and not so much concerned with singling out any of the comments received. So, again, what appears as Note 4 is distinct and independent from what appears as Note 4.1. Yet I would only suggest dropping point 4.1 if others believe that the report, as slightly revised in reaction to the public comments received, did respond at least in some fashion to the comments that joined their voices to Brazil’s dissent in asking for further discussions to take place, notably on immunity. This not being the case, I do believe – as Greg suggested – it would be fair to also explicitly give similar satisfaction to the contrary voices, which however, as I clarified in our previous call, are not really contrary to Brazil’s dissent, which fact should in my view be made explicit in the report as part of the subgroup’s response to the comments received.” I should clarify that my suggestion (as noted above by Thiago) does not imply that I support that particular outcome. *NOTE 6.1: *A “friendly amendment” was made on last week’s call to Stress Test 1 in “Proposed Accountability Measures,” to clarify that any registrar’s ability to “accept domain registration requests from citizens of any country” is still “subject to limitations and obligations due to applicable law and registry restrictions.” The other points remain unchanged from when this draft was circulated at roughly 06:00 UTC this morning/last night. I will circulate an Agenda and list of the “NOTES” shortly. Greg

2 1

PDF Copy of Agenda
by Greg Shatan Feb. 28, 2018

Feb. 28, 2018

PDF of Agenda attached. Greg

1 0