Raphael, Thanks for your email. In response to your questions: 1. *Recommending Solutions. *As a WS2 subgroup we are tasked with developing recommendations for solutions to the issues we identify and which are within the remit of the subgroup. Our draft report, including recommendations, will go to the Plenary for review and comment, and ultimately approval. 2. *Seeking the "Least Disruptive" Solutions. *You suggest that "the point could be rather to always strive, for problems we identify, towards the least disruptive solutions with regards to the current situation, i.e. how can we optimise between maximum improvement/mitigation of the issue on one hand and minimum disruption/dependence on 3rd parties for implementation on the other?" I believe this is addressed (affirmatively) in the Final Report for Work Stream 1: The Final Proposal describes the work done by the CCWG: - The CCWG “has developed … proposed enhancements to ICANN’s accountability to the global Internet community.” - “The accountability improvements set out in [the Final Proposal] are not designed to change ICANN’s multistakeholder model, the bottom-up nature of policy development, or significantly alter ICANN’s day-to-day operations.” - The Final Proposal concludes that “[t]ogether with ICANN’s existing structures and groups, these accountability enhancements will ensure ICANN remains accountable to the global Internet community.” These should apply equally to Work Stream 2, particularly since the Board will review the CCWG's recommendations with the same criteria it applied to Work Stream 1. Greg On Mon, Jun 12, 2017 at 9:09 AM, Raphaël BEAUREGARD-LACROIX < raphael.beauregardlacroix@sciencespo.fr> wrote:

Dear all,

Thanks Greg, this is indeed a useful synthesis.

I find myself agreeing with approach A for point I. Approach C has intellectual merit (a form of agnosticism...) but now that we are "in the question" I think that developing a minimal ex ante position as "our" interpretation of "our" mandate can be worthwhile. In the best of worlds, we would proceed as in C, however now that the debate is open, I think it is better to close it on something rather than nothing.

As for II, we should indeed focus on the "impact," (i.e. the problems) more than the solutions. However I note that many inputs at point I do talk of how to conceive solutions (in terms of mitigation of status quo, for example.) while some inputs at point II state that we should strictly focus on problems and maybe not even bring solutions to the table.

I am myself not very clear on that point: as WS2 subgroup are we supposed to bring solutions to the issues we identify or not? And is this actually up to "us" to decide? As far as I understood in Greg's summary of "foundational documents" (ref. May 23rd email) we are supposed to give recommendations i.e. solutions and not just pinpoint problems.

That being said, I like the idea of identifying problems before discussing solutions. As for III (immunity,) while I don't think immunity is an interesting solution in abstracto (there would be legal issues with seeking immunity and there could be unintended consequences of that immunity) I would still say "maybe" Approach A, but not now. I see Approach B and C as being discussion over a solution to a problem that we have yet to identify precisely.

This brings me to a nuance I would like to add: rather than the scope of our mandate and our work being a sort of red line, the point could be rather to always strive, for problems we identify, towards the least disruptive solutions with regards to the current situation, i.e. how can we optimise between maximum improvement/mitigation of the issue on one hand and minimum disruption/dependence on 3rd parties for implementation on the other? The issue of immunity is telling, because putting a scope "red line" actually does not reveal whether it is in or out of scope. Is immunity "just" mitigation or too big a dent in status quo? Hence, rather than attempting to solve this question here and now, we should first find a or several problems and then consider which solution is the optimal one given these two goals (improvement/mitigation and least disruption).

Best,

2017-06-12 8:40 GMT+02:00 Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com>:

...

Thanks for this Greg, useful for sometime like me who have mainly been following the list.

It seem to me that item 2 of appendix A is main point that needs to addressed​ and if some of the responses​ to that implies changing the status quo then it should be logged and consensus check be made on such alternate options.

Regards

On 12 Jun 2017 7:08 AM, "Greg Shatan" <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:

...

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

_______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction

_______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction

-- Raphaël Beauregard-Lacroix Sciences Po Law School 2014-2017 LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rapha%C3%ABl-beauregard-lacroix-88733786/> - @rbl0012 <https://twitter.com/rbl0112> - M: +33 7 86 39 18 15 <+33%207%2086%2039%2018%2015>

Thiago, Thank you for your email and suggested edits. We'll see what support there is for these edits vs. the original phrasings arrived at on last week's call. I would observe that the original phrasings were developed in an attempt to find somewhat of a middle ground that could gain support from disparate members of the Subgroup. We'll also have to see what support there is for your arguments that choosing an option in Table I is not necessary or appropriate. There are certainly some who agree with you, and then there are clearly others who disagree. By the way, I note your arguments are procedural. It would be helpful to understand your substantive concerns as well. I don't understand where you believe that "conflation" is occurring or how it would mislead some. In any event, I think the contrasting approaches are clear and should not mislead anyone. Best regards, Greg On Mon, Jun 12, 2017 at 10:51 AM, Thiago Braz Jardim Oliveira < thiago.jardim@itamaraty.gov.br> wrote:

Dear Greg,

I took the liberty to edit part of your table (with tracked changes) for the purposes of clarity about a couple of points others and I have been trying to make. The document is attached.

The first point is that choosing one of different approaches under "I. Limitations of Subgroup's Scope" is not necessary. In the document attached, for illustrative purposes, I only slightly changed the wording of the first approach on the "Focus of the Subgroup's work", and we would achieve the same result without having to tie our hands. I believe it is quite clear that, if we were to follow that approach, no reason compels us to assume ICANN will either remain or not in California for us to get our work done.

The second point is that choosing one of different approaches under "I. Limitations of Subgroup's Scope" is not appropriate. This limits our ability to discuss remedies, and this limitation would come at a stage where we have not discussed the problems that may need to be remedied. Again, there was agreement within the Subgroup that our work should address issues first, and only discuss remedies once the issues have been identified, which is logical.

A final observation is that the table conflates approaches that address remedies with approaches to identify issues (sometimes even under the same headings). To me this seems confusing and might mislead some.

Best,

Thiago

-----Mensagem original----- De: ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction- bounces@icann.org] Em nome de Greg Shatan Enviada em: segunda-feira, 12 de junho de 2017 03:08 Para: ws2-jurisdiction Assunto: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Potential Position Alternatives - Scope and Focus

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