Dear Greg If I’m not mistaken some discussion on the „gap analysis“ took place in the CCWG under the leadership of Mathieu in July 2015 – perhaps he may point us to relevant documents where this was further elaborated… Regards Jorge Von: ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org] Im Auftrag von Greg Shatan Gesendet: Dienstag, 20. September 2016 06:57 An: ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org Betreff: [Ws2-jurisdiction] CCWG Plenary Topic: Gap Analysis All, As mentioned in my prior email, we discussed seeking clarification from the CCWG Plenary regarding the Annex 12 statement that the Jurisdiction work should include "confirming and assessing the gap analysis." The statement does not include any further identification of the gap analysis or its results. To the best of our knowledge, there is no analysis done in WS1 that was called a "gap analysis" in so many words. Our rough interpretation is that this refers to the (implicit?) determination that there were no significant gaps in the accountability proposals resulting from ICANN's current jurisdictional framework. However, clarifying (or correcting) this would be helpful. To bring this back to the CWG Plenary, I would propose the following question: The scope of the Jurisdiction topic in Annex 12 includes "confirming and assessing the gap analysis." 1. Can the CCWG Plenary identify the "gap analysis" referred to? 2. If there was no formal gap analysis, is it correct to assume that this refers to a determination that there were no significant gaps in the WS1 accountability proposal resulting from ICANN's current jurisdictional framework? Greg