- Ws2-jurisdiction - lists.icann.org

Litigation Summary: Ruby Glen v. ICANN
by Greg Shatan June 19, 2017

June 19, 2017

Thank you to Vidushi Marda, who prepared the attached summary of the case *Ruby Glen v. ICANN*. Hopefully, we can discuss this on tomorrow's call. Greg

1 0

Caption Notes-Recordings-Transcript links for Jurisdiction Meeting #35 - 14 June 2017
by MSSI Secretariat June 19, 2017

June 19, 2017

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 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_0614I…> * PDF<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/66068505/Jurisdiction_0614…> 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)

8 19

Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] [CCWG-ACCT] Request for Clarification (Was Re: Fwd: Caption Notes-Recordings-Transcript links for Jurisdiction Meeting #35 - 14 June 2017)
by Kavouss Arasteh June 19, 2017

June 19, 2017

Paul, You misunderstood me and as usual categorically opposing to ANY comments that I made during the last 3 years. I do not associate any importance to that Regards Kavouss 2017-06-19 1:42 GMT+02:00 Paul Rosenzweig < paul.rosenzweig(a)redbranchconsulting.com>: > Needless to say, Thomas, you have my full support. And Kavouss assertion > that you acted beyond your remit is without foundation in either fact or > any of our policy documents. I regret only that I cannot join you in > Johannesburg to personally support the timely and thoughtful intervention > of the co-chairs. > > > > Paul > > > > Paul Rosenzweig > > paul.rosenzweig(a)redbranchconsulting.com > > O: +1 (202) 547-0660 <(202)%20547-0660> > > M: +1 (202) 329-9650 <(202)%20329-9650> > > VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 <(202)%20738-1739> > > www.redbranchconsulting.com > > My PGP Key: https://keys.mailvelope.com/pks/lookup?op=get&search= > 0x9A830097CA066684 > > > > *From:* accountability-cross-community-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto: > accountability-cross-community-bounces(a)icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Arasteh > *Sent:* Saturday, June 17, 2017 7:47 PM > *To:* Thomas Rickert <rickert(a)anwaelte.de> > *Cc:* Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross- > community(a)icann.org> > *Subject:* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Request for Clarification (Was Re: > [Ws2-jurisdiction] Fwd: Caption Notes-Recordings-Transcript links for > Jurisdiction Meeting #35 - 14 June 2017) > > > > Thomas > > But you should have consulted CCWG st least by sending message and asking > their views and NOT ALL OF SUUDEN coming and announcing the decision of > Co-Chairs. > > No such authority was entrusted to you. It was much beyond your authority. > > You need to formally explain to the f2f meeting on the over representation > of your personal views which were not coordinated with CCWG. > > I am sure all those who wanted no change from the day one would support > you even if they have not pushed you to > > Kavouss > > Sent from my iPhone > > > On 17 Jun 2017, at 03:55, Thomas Rickert <rickert(a)anwaelte.de> wrote: > > Dear Seun, > > thanks for your note. > > > > During the last subgroup’s call I have explained to the sub team that we > would report to the plenary, so please rest assured that keeping the CCWG > in the loop was always planned. > > > > In a few days, the CCWG will convene for its meeting at ICANN59. > > > > We will address this issue during that session. > > > > Kind regards, > > Thomas > > > > > > Am 17.06.2017 um 06:45 schrieb Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji(a)gmail.com>: > > > > Dear Co-Chairs, > > > > I was not in attendance at the last plenary in May (and perhaps a couple > of previous ones) but do follow the list and have just also checked the > list archive but can't seem to find any thread relating to consensus > building of the CCWG which then resulted to the decision of the Co-Chairs > that was presented at the jurisdiction subgroup's last meeting. > > > > May I request clarification on how you arrived at that decision? Ofcourse > I certainly may have missed something. > > > > Regards > > > > On 16 Jun 2017 7:33 PM, "Greg Shatan" <gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Seun, > > > > Thanks for your comments. With regard to your concerns about the > co-chairs (all but #2), you should take those up with the co-chairs. It > sounds like some things need to be clarified. > > > > The significance of the comments from those opposed to the decision can be > weighed by the Plenary. While the Subgroup's support was at a sufficient > level to be called consensus, such support of the Subgroup for the > Co-Chairs' decision was welcome, but not necessary. Finally , not to speak > for the Co-Chairs, but since the motivating factor here was to narrow our > options by excluding alternatives that would not get consensus support, > checking numbers is relevant. > > > > Best regards, > > > > Greg > > > > On Fri, Jun 16, 2017 at 2:39 AM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji(a)gmail.com> > wrote: > > Hello Greg, > > > > Thanks for your clarification so based on your explanation: > > > > 1. The co-chairs of the CCWG presented a personal decision of theirs and > not of the plenary? I had thought co-chairs are supposed to observe > discussion within the CCWG plenary and make their decision based on that. > > > > 2. The subgroup then supported the decision of the co-chairs (hopefully > by consensus?). May I know if the subgroup decision making is only limited > to those who attend meeting calls? I think it's important to consider the > significance of the comments raised by the few members you indicated > opposed as you and I know that just checking numbers for/against in this > case will not do necessary justice to the matter at hand. > > > > 3. Saying that this will now be decided by the plenary after the co-chairs > of the plenary already made a declaration/decision about the subject matter > sounds like a procedural flaw to me. > > > > The plenary co-chairs have done extremely well in coordinating the CCWG > since WS1 and I hope this will not be an exception. I will apply same > comment to subgroup leads as well. > > > > Regards > > PS: my participation here remains as an end user affiliated to atlarge and > NOT as any other hat that I may wear. > > > > On 16 Jun 2017 12:50 AM, "Greg Shatan" <gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Seun, > > > > Thank you for asking. Let me clarify for you and others where we are > procedurally. Yes, issues relating to clarity on scope are ultimately to be > determined by the CCWG plenary. As you note, Thomas was speaking for the > co-Chairs, and as the co-chairs stated, after almost a year of > deliberations in this group, they could not see the possibility of > consensus on recommendations which included these elements. The decision > presented by Thomas was a decision by the co-Chairs. It was good that bulk > of the Subgroup supported the decision on the call, but it should not be > viewed as a Subgroup action per se. As of the end of the call, the > discussion and decision now goes to the Plenary. Unless the decision > changes there, that ends the discussion within the CCWG. > > > > Greg > > > > On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 7:34 PM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji(a)gmail.com> > wrote: > > Hello Greg, > > > > In the summary sent by staff the decision extract starts with the > following: > > > > "Thomas Rickert for the CCWG-Accountability Co-Chairs, We have concluded > that......." > > > > Please can you clarify if this decision was made by the subgroup or by the > CCWG plenary as well? As I am somewhat unclear who is declaring/making > decisions on things here. > > > > If am right, the subgroup makes recommendations to the plenary who then > decides, it also seem to me that issues relating to clarity on scope should > be better determined by the CCWG plenary. > > > > Regards > > > > On 15 Jun 2017 10:27 PM, "Greg Shatan" <gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > 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(a)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(a)icann.org> > Cc: "ws2-jurisdiction(a)icann.org" <ws2-jurisdiction(a)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) > > [image: Image removed by sender.] > > Skype: brenda.brewer.icann > > Phone: 1-310-745-1107 <(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_0614I…> > - PDF > <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/66068505/Jurisdiction_0614…> > > > > *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(a)icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 > >

3 2

Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] [CCWG-ACCT] Documents for upcoming meeting
by avri doria June 16, 2017

June 16, 2017

On 15-Jun-17 14:38, Greg Shatan wrote: > you will even see that Thomas cited one of your contributions from the > first meeting I have now read the captioning - am very grateful for captioning and recommend we do it for all AC meetings in ICANN. Quoting the captioning from Thomas: And so 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 California and work on solutions that are founded on this very recommendation. I would like to discuss this. I did say that we should work on the _assumption _that we were going to maintain the status quo and should try and solve all of the issues on that basis. I did not mean to limit what the solutions might be and certainly had no intention of limiting the set to exclude talk of immunities. Immunities, seem to me, to be one of the tools that could make the status quo more palatable to those who don't and can't accept it. So while I proposed that conversation of moving be put aside, until and unless, we found problems that could not be rmedied in any other way, I did not intend that proposal to be understood as putting aside discussion of all possible immunities. This would not include all possible immunities as some of the current accountability measure rely on access to California courts. But not all possible immunities necessarily contradict the assumptions of our current model. I believe we should still be open to discussing those. To the degree that the current decision is immutable, after one reading, on excluding both a planned move and discussion of any immunities, I do not support the decision. I do support putting aside any discussion of moving or of immunities incompatible with our current accountability schemes, but also do support discussion of possible immunities/remedies that do not harm the current accountability schemes. thanks avri --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus

4 3

Wrapping Up Litigation and Questionnaire Response Review
by Greg Shatan June 16, 2017

June 16, 2017

All, We need to wrap up the litigation review and questionnaire response review tasks. I have asked all volunteers with outstanding reviews to please submit them by June 20, so we will have them before ICANN59. However, there are still 14 (!) unclaimed litigation matters. If you have not already done so (or even if you have), please pick up one or two cases today and volunteer to review them. As a special treat, you won't have to have your work done until after ICANN59 (unless you're inspired to hand it in earlier, which would be better) If just 7 people picked up 2 cases each, we'd be done with the assignment part, at least.... Here's a link to the sign-up sheet: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1oo9oDJuuxFz1UUNaBfHeor7HPhJ5XcRHFTq3hjR… Thanks! Greg

1 0

Potential Position Alternatives - Scope and Focus
by Greg Shatan June 16, 2017

June 16, 2017

All, Based on our call last week, I've reviewed the captioning transcript and chat transcript and pulled out the various formulations of different positions on the Subgroup's scope and focus. I've edited some of the statements for clarity and written vs. oral presentation, but endeavored not to change the meaning in any case. The attached document has three charts (Scope, Focus, Immunity Question). In each chart, each column represents a significantly different approach to the issue. Within each column, the statements are largely similar, but do have some difference that will need to be resolved. Ideally, we will be able to come to consensus on an approach for each of these issues. I've also attached a revised copy of the transcript. I found significant gaps and mistranscriptions, so I listened to the MP3 and corrected a number of errors. Please review and respond. Greg

6 7

Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] [CCWG-ACCT] Caption Notes-Recordings-Transcript links for Jurisdiction Meeting #35 - 14 June 2017
by Jorge.Cancio＠bakom.admin.ch June 16, 2017

June 16, 2017

Dear Greg Thank you for your views. I'm also interested in the views of others as Avri and Segun, that seem to have good points to make and are correcting some things which were put to the group. As to my proposal: from the transcript it appears that you reported about it, but no debate took place. Hence your assertion that it did not "garner substantial support". Instead Thomas R. intervened with a prepared co-chair proposal. The subsequent interventions show in my view a quite divided set of speakers until at the end of the call you ask for objections only about Thomas' proposal - which relied, as Avri has explained, partially at least on an incorrect reading of her prior suggestions to the list. If I were the lead of this Subgroup I would be more conservative in qualifiying the situation, in view of the transcript, the reactions and how awkwardly all happened and the corrections that are being made. In any case it is up to the CCWG to consider this Subgroup proposal (if it can be called such). And the CCWG cannot change what was agreed by the chartering orgs. regards Jorge ________________________________ Von: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com> Datum: 15. Juni 2017 um 23:39:44 MESZ An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio(a)bakom.admin.ch> Cc: ws2-jurisdiction <ws2-jurisdiction(a)icann.org>, MSSI Secretariat <mssi-secretariat(a)icann.org>, accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org <accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org> Betreff: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Caption Notes-Recordings-Transcript links for Jurisdiction Meeting #35 - 14 June 2017 Jorge, Thank you for your views. Your proposal was put before the group at the beginning of the call (as you requested); it did not garner substantial support. The Co-Chairs have been monitoring this Subgroup and I think their statement, as offered by Thomas, speaks for itself. A request for those opposed to the Co-Chairs' conclusion was made on the call, and we recorded four opposed. I also hope that we can return to substantive discussions now and avoid rehashing this decision or the underlying concepts yet again. Greg On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 3:32 PM, <Jorge.Cancio(a)bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>> wrote: Dear Greg and all, Sorry to see that another call was lost in preempting hypothetical remedies, before even a full discussion about the issues has taken place (some of the inputs to the questionnaire have not even been presented yet - and the cases are far from having been finalised). Especially the issue of taylor-made protections against unwarranted interference would merit a real debate. But after several attempts to foreclose some quite improbable scenarios it seems that this preemptive action has succeeded, albeit in awkward circumstances. I personally feel that the approach I propose(d) -which is what we had agreed before after initial debates- would have been much more efficient in our time-management, would have followed the logical order of analyzing first issues and -being factual and objective- would have avoided this absolutely unnecessary divisiveness. Hope that we may at last return to substantive discussions soon and that the Plenary is wise enough not to close the door to considering sensible, commonly agreed solutions, if our future analysis of the issues reveals them appropriate. kind regards Jorge ________________________________ Von: MSSI Secretariat <mssi-secretariat(a)icann.org<mailto:mssi-secretariat@icann.org>> Datum: 15. Juni 2017 um 19:47:01 MESZ An: CCWG Accountability <accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Cc: ws2-jurisdiction(a)icann.org<mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> <ws2-jurisdiction(a)icann.org<mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org>> Betreff: [CCWG-ACCT] Caption Notes-Recordings-Transcript links for Jurisdiction Meeting #35 - 14 June 2017 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:1-310-745-1107> 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_0614I…> * PDF<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/66068505/Jurisdiction_0614…> 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(a)icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

2 3

Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] [CCWG-ACCT] Caption Notes-Recordings-Transcript links for Jurisdiction Meeting #35 - 14 June 2017
by Jorge.Cancio＠bakom.admin.ch June 15, 2017

June 15, 2017

Dear Greg and all, Sorry to see that another call was lost in preempting hypothetical remedies, before even a full discussion about the issues has taken place (some of the inputs to the questionnaire have not even been presented yet - and the cases are far from having been finalised). Especially the issue of taylor-made protections against unwarranted interference would merit a real debate. But after several attempts to foreclose some quite improbable scenarios it seems that this preemptive action has succeeded, albeit in awkward circumstances. I personally feel that the approach I propose(d) -which is what we had agreed before after initial debates- would have been much more efficient in our time-management, would have followed the logical order of analyzing first issues and -being factual and objective- would have avoided this absolutely unnecessary divisiveness. Hope that we may at last return to substantive discussions soon and that the Plenary is wise enough not to close the door to considering sensible, commonly agreed solutions, if our future analysis of the issues reveals them appropriate. kind regards Jorge ________________________________ Von: MSSI Secretariat <mssi-secretariat(a)icann.org> Datum: 15. Juni 2017 um 19:47:01 MESZ An: CCWG Accountability <accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org> Cc: ws2-jurisdiction(a)icann.org <ws2-jurisdiction(a)icann.org> Betreff: [CCWG-ACCT] Caption Notes-Recordings-Transcript links for Jurisdiction Meeting #35 - 14 June 2017 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 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_0614I…> * PDF<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/66068505/Jurisdiction_0614…> 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)

2 1

Documents for upcoming meeting
by Greg Shatan June 15, 2017

June 15, 2017

All, In addition to the agenda, the summaries we will discuss are attached. Also attached is the chart containing the "raw" statements made during the prior call (plus the changes suggested by Thiago on the list), as well as a distillation of those statements (since a number were essentially repetitive or overlapping). Greg

3 5

Request for clarification
by Thiago Braz Jardim Oliveira June 15, 2017

June 15, 2017

Dear Greg, It seems some important decision was pushed for and supposedly adopted in the last minutes of the call. Would you be so kind to clarify what was the attempted decision, so we and others from the Subgroup as a whole could consider it? Thank you. Best, Thiago

1 0