All, I have attached Word and PDF versions of the revisions-in-process version of the Jurisdiction Subgroup Report. This draft is also available as a Google Doc at https://docs.google.com/document/d/1rdMJyvZdyN9TApT6gx_3NwpdvIL7YKHEUD7tNfLf... This draft reflects changes to the consensus of the Subgroup’s Draft Report based on the Subgroup’s review and discussion of the Public Comments. I would like to draw your attention particularly to the following items: 1. *Consensus Check Needed on Recommending a Method of Choosing Governing Law. *On the February 7 Subgroup call, there was considerable support for changing the consensus on how the “choice of law” would be chosen from the menu. In the Comment Draft, the Subgroup mentioned both having the registry (or the registrar) choose the governing law and having the choice of governing law be subject to negotiation, without expressing a preference for either. On the Subgroup call, there was support for recommending that the registry (or the registrar) choose the governing law, and stating expressly that it would not be negotiated with ICANN. *It is important to see if we have a new consensus among the Subgroup members, not just those on the call, since the call was lightly attended. A*ny “recommendation” by this Subgroup on this issue will be advisory only and not truly a recommendation (i.e., one that if approved by the Chartering Orgs and the Board, must be put in place), since amendments to the base agreements are governed by a separate process. *If we adopt this new approach, the marked proposed changes on pages 5, 20, 21 and 25 would be accepted. If not, these changes would not be adopted. (For your convenience, there is a comment attached to each of these proposed changes.)* 2. *Proposed Language Needed from NCSG on change to OFAC General License Recommendation. *On the February 7 Subgroup call, there was discussion of the NCSG’s comment on the recommendation relating to OFAC general licenses, which suggested changing the consensus language on this point to a firmer approach. Since we were coming to the end of the call, and the NCSG comment did not suggest exact edits to the current language, a request was made to the NCSG representatives on the call that a proposed revision be circulated so that the Subgroup could have a more concrete discussion of the proposed change. It would be very helpful to have this new language ASAP. If none is forthcoming, I will try my best to come up with a proposed revision this recommendation before the call. 3. *Summary of Subgroup’s Latest Work added to “Background” Section (page 11). *The summary of work in the public comment draft necessary ended before the draft was completed by the Subgroup for submission to the Plenary. I have now added proposed language describing events since that time, particularly the submission of the dissenting opinion by the Government of Brazil, the approval of the Report by the Plenary, the Public Comment period, the receipt of Comments, and the Subgroup’s consideration of the Comments. While there are other proposed changes in the document, I believe these are the most significant. We will go over these points in our upcoming call and, hopefully, complete our “second reading” of the Comments as well, including any changes to the Subgroup’s consensus requiring revisions to the Report. I look forward to our call. Best regards, Greg