Dear Greg,

 

Thank you for your reply. I believe it does not do justice to my assertion that the subgroup did not discuss or even hint at your proposal that any recommendation be limited to 2 to 4 issues.


If anyone reads last call's transcript, or listens to the recording, they will see that the question of the number of issues to be included in a final recommendation was not really discussed. Yet prudence and care on the part of its proponent, who happens to be also the rapporteur, would recommend that he brings it to the fore, before concluding there is "no opposition to it". (In fact, I was confident we had moved away from that test, which during last call I expressly denounced as giving a disproportionate power to who framed the questions, towards a test where what was needed for the different aspects of the proposal to be approved was the manifestation of "sufficient support").


As to the original e-mail you sent, from which you say the language "2 to 4" is "taken almost verbatim from the first version of the 'Path Forward' proposal circulated", you will agree that this language was not presented in the "approach" you "proposed" and which you highlighted as for our consideration. Here is the part in your original e-mail, which you put in BOLD and coloured letters, and which you introduced as "I would propose the following approach:"


[QUOTE]

To reach this objective I would propose the following approach: 
[/QUOTE]

That was the "proposal" we discussed, and which the subgroup was able to slightly modify following discussion. Now, I am sure you did not have the intention of deceiving anyone when you did not call our attention to that other aspect of your overall "path forward" that I'm expressing opposition to, namely that any final recommendation by the subgroup should be limited to "2 to 4" issues, by not highlighting it in your original e-mail in the same way you did with respect to everything else.

I believe it would be most appropriate not to take "absence of discussion" on that aspect as "absence of opposition". Therefore, in abidance by the requirements of transparency and fair treatment, would you be so kind to ask the question whether there is sufficient support for limiting, at this stage, the number of issues there will be in any final recommendation by the subgroup? My views are that we'd be, once again, putting the cart before the horse. Thank you.

Best,

Thiago



De: Greg Shatan [gregshatanipc@gmail.com]
Enviado: segunda-feira, 21 de agosto de 2017 18:09
Para: Thiago Braz Jardim Oliveira
Cc: ws2-jurisdiction; acct-staff@icann.org
Assunto: Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Jurisdiction Subgroup: The (Revised) Path Forward

Thiago,

Thank you for allowing me to correct you.

The language you say "goes beyond what has been discussed or even hinted at by the subgroup" is taken almost verbatim from the first version of the "Path Forward" proposal circulated and discussed on last week's call.  There was no opposition to that aspect of the proposal.  Indeed, I softened it slightly, on my own initiative, by adding "likely" before 2-4 issues.

As for the "one person, one issue" aspect of the proposal, I'm not sure why you bring that up now.  That "more basic question" was answered on the last call and has very clearly been changed in the revised Path Forward email to which you are replying. For your convenience, I'll repeat it here:

The Method: Participants should each present one or more issues (with proposed solutions) which they believe are in scope for the Subgroup
    • If you present more than one issue, please prioritize them (e.g., 1, 2, 3)
Finally, I will remind you that each meeting has its own subpage on our Subgroup's wiki, and all of these elements, including the deadline, were posted soon after the last meeting on the page for last week's meeting at https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=69272137.  Of course, those who were on the call (like you) needed neither the email nor the wiki page, since you were on the call.  It should also be noted that in the original Path Forward proposal, it was clearly stated that these issues would be discussed on the 23 August call.  In a perfect world, the email would have gone out earlier, but it was only the latest in several different communications all covering the same ground.

I do agree with your exhortation to be efficient as possible in dealing with the issues the participants have proposed.  This starts, of course, with the participants being efficient in setting forth those issues, which could see improvement in some instances.

Best regards,

Greg

On Mon, Aug 21, 2017 at 3:02 AM, Thiago Braz Jardim Oliveira <thiago.jardim@itamaraty.gov.br> wrote:
Dear Greg,

Please correct me if I'm mistaken. As far as I'm aware of, the subgroup has NOT (at least not yet) chosen to limit the number of issues there will be in any final report. So, to my understanding, your suggestion that "we will need to select a handful of issues (likely, 2 to 4)" goes beyond what has been discussed or even hinted at by the subgroup. In fact, with regard to the more basic question as to the number of issues each participant are to suggest for consideration (obviously all with the expectation that they will be retained in a final report to the extent possible), there was NOT significant support for your initial proposed path that would have limited it to "one man/woman one issue".

So I'd encourage us not to put the cart before the horse (again) and try to be as efficient as possible in the treatment of the issues participants will have proposed. This could probably lead us to have in a final report more than the "likely, 2 to 4" issues that you suggest, which number the subgroup has never even suggested would be satisfactory.

Best,

Thiago

PS: on a related note, it is regrettable that the message to the list informing all participants that they will have until the 21 August to post issues for consideration was only sent on the very 21 August.



De: ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org [ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org] em nome de Greg Shatan [gregshatanipc@gmail.com]
Enviado: segunda-feira, 21 de agosto de 2017 0:32
Para: ws2-jurisdiction
Cc: acct-staff@icann.org
Assunto: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Jurisdiction Subgroup: The (Revised) Path Forward

At our 16 August meeting, we discussed the initial “Path Forward” proposal and various comments from participants.  We arrived at the following approach to produce Subgroup recommendations.

11 October Deadline:

·         Based on the overall timeline for Work Stream 2, the Subgroup has until 11 October to submit a draft report and set of recommendations to the Plenary for first reading. 

·         In other words, we have about seven (7) weeks to develop a draft set of issues and recommendations and come to consensus on these.

A Handful of Issues: We will need to select a handful of issues (likely, 2 to 4) which:

·         Are within our remit.

·         Will result in recommendations that achieve consensus in the Subgroup.

The Challenge: Everyone will have to compromise in order to finalize this limited number of issues over the next very few weeks and work diligently at meetings and on the list to develop recommendations for these particular issues.

The Method: Participants should each present one or more issues (with proposed solutions) which they believe are in scope for the Subgroup

·         If you present more than one issue, please prioritize them (e.g., 1, 2, 3)

·         Post the issue statement(s) to the list by 23:59 on 21 August for discussion at our meeting of 23 August.

·         Issues should be very specific -- avoid open-ended, abstract or omnibus issues.

·         All proposed issue statements should include one or more proposed solutions.

·         Issue and solution descriptions should be succinct -- 12 standard lines maximum (each).

·         Send your issue statement to the email list or put it on the Google sheet:

o   Use a new email (not a reply), with the subject ISSUE: [name of issue].

o   Google sheet is here: 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: 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/spreadsheets/d/1zAMj3Oz8TEqbjauOyqt09Ef-1ada9TrC7i60Mk-7al4/edit?usp=sharing

§  If you put your issue on the Google sheet, notify the email list.

·         If another participant proposes an issue you wanted to propose, simply post your support for that issue statement.

Thank you.

Greg