Kavouss, What is your basis for asserting that the Report is not a consensus document? Do you believe that the report should be withdrawn? I look forward to your response. Thank you. Best regards, Greg On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 6:03 AM, Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear All I share the views and concerns expressed by Benedicto, in particular his reference on not to categorise the report as a consensus doc. Regards Kavouss
Sent from my iPhone
On 12 Oct 2017, at 02:54, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
Benedicto,
Sorry, I didn't see your request before I sent off the draft, so i was unable to consider it. Please feel free to send it directly to the Plenary.
Best regards,
Greg
On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 7:14 PM, Benedicto Fonseca Filho < benedicto.fonseca@itamaraty.gov.br> wrote:
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@icann.org [ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@ican n.org] em nome de Greg Shatan [gregshatanipc@gmail.com] *Enviado:* quarta-feira, 11 de outubro de 2017 15:42 *Para:* ws2-jurisdiction *Cc:* acct-staff@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:* *MailScanner has detected definite fraud in the website at "docs.google.com". Do not trust this website:* https://docs.google.com/docume nt/d/135c03wFSIlz1Lqdv6Tte8sw7tMinsQEgy0CoNtRXT4Y/edit?usp=sharing <https://docs.google.com/document/d/135c03wFSIlz1Lqdv6Tte8sw7tMinsQEgy0CoNtRX...>
Choice of Law and Venue: *MailScanner has detected definite fraud in the website at "docs.google.com". Do not trust this website:* *MailScanner has detected definite fraud in the website at "docs.google.com". Do not trust this website:* https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Z7A233KiPQV2ijVgWzxWOv3e ePTy9rSPIMFxbiZ86lo/edit?usp=sharing <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Z7A233KiPQV2ijVgWzxWOv3eePTy9rSPIMFxbiZ8...>
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
_______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction