Jurisdiction Subgroup. Draft Report. Statement of Brazil. Annex. To be annexed to the draft report. For consideration by the CCWG.
Dear all, On behalf of the Brazilian Government, I hereby submit the "Statement of Brazil" and its annex, which are to be annexed to the draft report of the jurisdiction subgroup, submitted on 11 October 2017, for consideration by the CCWG plenary. Best regards, Thiago ________________________________ De: ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org [ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org] em nome de Greg Shatan [gregshatanipc@gmail.com] Enviado: quinta-feira, 12 de outubro de 2017 23:29 Para: accountability-cross-community@icann.org Cc: acct-staff@icann.org; ws2-jurisdiction Assunto: Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Jurisdiction Subgroup Draft Report for CCWG-Accountability Plenary Review All, One of the Subgroup members pointed out a minor editing error in the document. On pages 13-14, there were several mentions of the RAA, when in fact the language quoted and discussed was from the ICANN Terms and Conditions for Registrar Accreditation Application. (The reference was correct in the Executive Summary.) This has now been fixed in the attached. Greg On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 10:10 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> wrote: All, Some minor formatting errors crept into the Report when it was converted from Word to PDF. A new PDF of the report is attached. I've checked each page to confirm that the formatting errors were resolved. Thank you to Jorge Cancio for catching this problem! Greg On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 7:53 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> wrote: All, I am pleased to submit the Draft Report from the Jurisdiction Subgroup for consideration by the CCWG-Accountability Plenary. It is my understanding that a minority viewpoint is expected to be submitted. In the interests of time, this will be submitted to the Plenary separately from the Draft Report. During the preparation of the OFAC Recommendation, the Subgroup considered an email where a registrar declined to do business with a potential reseller, based on the registrar’s policy of not doing business with people with Iranian passports. The Subgroup also learned that this registrar, which had been registering domains for a number of Iranian nationals, refused to continue to do business with them. The Subgroup has concluded that, to the extent these instances are related to OFAC, the concerns raised by these instances are adequately covered in the Recommendation already without any additional changes. This is not in any way a comment on the validity of these particular concerns. The Subgroup will consider creating "stress tests" based on these scenarios. I look forward to the Plenary's reading of the Draft Report. Best regards, Greg Shatan Rapporteur
Thiago, Thank you for your email. As an initial matter, I am surprised to see that the cover note to your minority report (pp. 1-2 of the PDF) is nothing more than the email that Benedicto sent to the Subgroup list several days ago. I assume that since it is only a cover note to the minority report, it is not intended to be considered for inclusion in the Subgroup Report. Nonetheless, the cover note does raise a number of issues (before we even get to the Minority Report): First, I assume when you refer to the "Chair," you mean the rapporteur of the Subgroup, and not the Chairs of the CCWG. In either case, you mean me. Second, I strongly disagree with (and I am quite taken aback by) this statement: 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 What is the origin of this "understanding"? How did you come to "understand" this? If this is your contention (or worse yet, the contention of the Government of Brazil) then come out and say it, rather than citing some vague "understanding." What is the basis for your contention that I made an "incorrect consensus-level designation"? That is a very serious allegation to lay before the Plenary without offering any support for it whatsoever. Our charter defines "consensus" as "a position where a small minority disagrees, but most agree." We had one objection on our last call, which I'm sure you know, since you were on the call and made that objection. (Of course, if this is Benedicto's statement, I suppose he can be forgiven in a sense for not knowing exactly what happened on the call.) We had one other objection on the email list. I consider two objections (or three, if we count you and Benedicto separately) out of 73 participants to be a "small minority." I can't see how it would be "understood" to be otherwise. If the basis is that I didn't phrase the finding of consensus with exactly the right words, that is picayune proceduralism. ICANN is not a place where "magic words" need to be invoked. It's the substance that matters, and I stand by the substance of my consensus determination (and I note that in spite of Benedicto's email to the Subgroup several days ago, no one else joined this view.) There is also an inherent illogic in your position. If the consensus determination was incorrect, then no Subgroup report should be submitted to the Plenary, and thus no need and no place for a minority report. On the other hand, if the report is properly submitted, then it would be appropriate to submit a minority report, but your accusation would be baseless. At the risk of using an idiomatic phrase, you can't have your cake and eat it too. I am also appalled by the grave accusation that "many views and contributions ... were systematically disregarded or ignored" during the work of the Subgroup. That is simply not true, and appears to be an attempt to undermine the legitimacy of the Subgroup and be extension, the CCWG. Indeed we probably spent an inordinate amount of time hearing out and considering the views and contributions of various participants (on a multitude of matters both procedural and substantive). I have to say that I find it quite inappropriate to bring this all up in a statement to the full CCWG, without any attempt to resolve the issue within the Subgroup or seeking the assistance of the Co-Chairs. It seems calculated more to score points than to solve problems. As for the mandate of the Subgroup, this was discussed at great length in the Subgroup (largely before you joined). Suffice it to say that there were many who did not take such an expansive view of the mandate as you put forth. There are many other concerns raised by this cover note, but this email is long enough as is. With regard to the Minority Report itself, it is critical to note that this is the first time that I or any member of the Subgroup has seen this document, though I recognize bits and pieces from some of your interventions. I will also note that the second set of Recommendations in our Subgroup Report benefited greatly from one of our participants pulling together a first draft from various interventions and submissions. If this Minority Report had been submitted to the Subgroup as a draft recommendation on a timely basis, perhaps that would have helped the Subgroup in a similar fashion -- though (based on the discussions in the Subgroup) it would be presumptuous to leave the impression that this would have resulted in a third recommendation. In any event, it is quite unfortunate that this was not done, and the choice was made to submit it to the Plenary instead. This Minority Report also seems to misunderstand the status of a Minority Report. It is a statement of the viewpoint of those who did not join the consensus. It is not something to be submitted for debate and decision by the Plenary as an ex post facto amendment of the Subgroup Report. This would subvert the very structure of Work Stream 2. A Minority Report is merely a non-consensus record of the position of one or a small group of participants. If there were time to do so, I would suggest redirecting this to the Subgroup for consideration as a possible recommendation by the Subgroup. That would at least be procedurally and substantively appropriate, if not temporally appropriate. But perhaps there is a reason this is being submitted here and now, as a "Minority Report" -- but uncontroverted by any part of the Subgroup Report or by any of the work of the Subgroup. The Plenary should understand that these viewpoints, and considerably different viewpoints with regard to these concepts, were discussed at considerable length in the Subgroup. Minority reports typically dissent from conclusions in the Subgroup Report, thus allowing readers to see both sides of an issue. This, of course, does no such thing. Perhaps there needs to be a counterpoint prepared, representing the other viewpoint or viewpoints on these topics. That would at least be a more fair representation of the work of the Subgroup as a whole. I will leave it to our Co-Chairs to decide the next steps with regard to this submission. Best regards, Greg On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 9:13 PM, Thiago Braz Jardim Oliveira < thiago.jardim@itamaraty.gov.br> wrote:
Dear all,
On behalf of the Brazilian Government, I hereby submit the "Statement of Brazil" and its annex, which are to be annexed to the draft report of the jurisdiction subgroup, submitted on 11 October 2017, for consideration by the CCWG plenary.
Best regards,
Thiago
------------------------------ *De:* ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org [ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@ icann.org] em nome de Greg Shatan [gregshatanipc@gmail.com] *Enviado:* quinta-feira, 12 de outubro de 2017 23:29 *Para:* accountability-cross-community@icann.org *Cc:* acct-staff@icann.org; ws2-jurisdiction *Assunto:* Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Jurisdiction Subgroup Draft Report for CCWG-Accountability Plenary Review
All,
One of the Subgroup members pointed out a minor editing error in the document. On pages 13-14, there were several mentions of the RAA, when in fact the language quoted and discussed was from the ICANN Terms and Conditions for Registrar Accreditation Application. (The reference was correct in the Executive Summary.) This has now been fixed in the attached.
Greg
On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 10:10 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
All,
Some minor formatting errors crept into the Report when it was converted from Word to PDF. A new PDF of the report is attached. I've checked each page to confirm that the formatting errors were resolved.
Thank you to Jorge Cancio for catching this problem!
Greg
On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 7:53 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
All,
I am pleased to submit the Draft Report from the Jurisdiction Subgroup for consideration by the CCWG-Accountability Plenary.
It is my understanding that a minority viewpoint is expected to be submitted. In the interests of time, this will be submitted to the Plenary separately from the Draft Report.
*During the preparation of the OFAC Recommendation, the Subgroup considered an email where a registrar declined to do business with a potential reseller, based on the registrar’s policy of not doing business with people with Iranian passports. The Subgroup also learned that this registrar, which had been registering domains for a number of Iranian nationals, refused to continue to do business with them. The Subgroup has concluded that, to the extent these instances are related to OFAC, the concerns raised by these instances are adequately covered in the Recommendation already without any additional changes. This is not in any way a comment on the validity of these particular concerns. The Subgroup will consider creating "stress tests" based on these scenarios.*
I look forward to the Plenary's reading of the Draft Report.
Best regards,
Greg Shatan *Rapporteur*
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Dear All I fully support the excellent "statement of Brazil", which makes the required point very well. The sub-group should consider the draft recommendations made in the statement. In default, the CCWG should directly consider them. My own dissenting opinion is enclosed. It is in two parts, part 1 is about what was the group's mandate to do but it failed to do. This part first expresses support to Brazil's statement, and then makes additional points, detailing how there has been a miscarriage of due process, and thus justifying why Brazil's draft recs must be considered, in the required elaborate manner. Part one is enclosed herewith. Part two will present some comments on and disagreements with regard to the two sets of draft recs that have been submitted on the sub-group's behalf. I am still to write them, so allow me to submit them in the next 12 hours, which will still be the weekend in some parts of the world, and thus within the deadline I hope. Best regards, parminder On Sunday 15 October 2017 06:43 AM, Thiago Braz Jardim Oliveira wrote:
Dear all,
On behalf of the Brazilian Government, I hereby submit the "Statement of Brazil" and its annex, which are to be annexed to the draft report of the jurisdiction subgroup, submitted on 11 October 2017, for consideration by the CCWG plenary.
Best regards,
Thiago
------------------------------------------------------------------------ *De:* ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org [ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org] em nome de Greg Shatan [gregshatanipc@gmail.com] *Enviado:* quinta-feira, 12 de outubro de 2017 23:29 *Para:* accountability-cross-community@icann.org *Cc:* acct-staff@icann.org; ws2-jurisdiction *Assunto:* Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Jurisdiction Subgroup Draft Report for CCWG-Accountability Plenary Review
All,
One of the Subgroup members pointed out a minor editing error in the document. On pages 13-14, there were several mentions of the RAA, when in fact the language quoted and discussed was from the ICANN Terms and Conditions for Registrar Accreditation Application. (The reference was correct in the Executive Summary.) This has now been fixed in the attached.
Greg
On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 10:10 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> wrote:
All,
Some minor formatting errors crept into the Report when it was converted from Word to PDF. A new PDF of the report is attached. I've checked each page to confirm that the formatting errors were resolved.
Thank you to Jorge Cancio for catching this problem!
Greg
On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 7:53 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> wrote:
All,
I am pleased to submit the Draft Report from the Jurisdiction Subgroup for consideration by the CCWG-Accountability Plenary.
It is my understanding that a minority viewpoint is expected to be submitted. In the interests of time, this will be submitted to the Plenary separately from the Draft Report.
/During the preparation of the OFAC Recommendation, the Subgroup considered an email where a registrar declined to do business with a potential reseller, based on the registrar’s policy of not doing business with people with Iranian passports. The Subgroup also learned that this registrar, which had been registering domains for a number of Iranian nationals, refused to continue to do business with them. The Subgroup has concluded that, to the extent these instances are related to OFAC, the concerns raised by these instances are adequately covered in the Recommendation already without any additional changes. This is not in any way a comment on the validity of these particular concerns. The Subgroup will consider creating "stress tests" based on these scenarios./ / / I look forward to the Plenary's reading of the Draft Report.
Best regards,
Greg Shatan /Rapporteur/
_______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
There is much that can be said in response to these submissions - including the substantive corrections that has been offered by Greg, which I endorse completely. Any suggestion that the subgroup report is the product of an "incorrect census-level designation made by the Chair" is false as to fact and the suggestion should be withdrawn. At this point, however, the only other thing that needs saying is that the views of Parminder and the Brazilian government were extensively discussed in the subgroup and never garnered majority support (much less support approaching consensus). As such, the dissenting views of the minority are just that - minority views reflecting the opinion of a small dissatisfied group of dissenters. The subgroup was open to participation from everyone in the ICANN community and it did reach consensus on the two issues presented, which I commend to the favorable attention of the plenary. Paul Paul Rosenzweig <mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com O: +1 (202) 547-0660 M: +1 (202) 329-9650 VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 <http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/> www.redbranchconsulting.com My PGP Key: <https://keys.mailvelope.com/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x9A830097CA066684> https://keys.mailvelope.com/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x9A830097CA066684 From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of parminder Sent: Sunday, October 15, 2017 2:22 PM To: Thiago Braz Jardim Oliveira <thiago.jardim@itamaraty.gov.br>; accountability-cross-community@icann.org Cc: acct-staff@icann.org; gac@icann.org; GAC <gac@gac.icann.org>; ws2-jurisdiction <ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] [Ws2-jurisdiction] Jurisdiction Subgroup. Draft Report. Statement of Brazil. Annex. To be annexed to the draft report. For consideration by the CCWG. Dear All I fully support the excellent "statement of Brazil", which makes the required point very well. The sub-group should consider the draft recommendations made in the statement. In default, the CCWG should directly consider them. My own dissenting opinion is enclosed. It is in two parts, part 1 is about what was the group's mandate to do but it failed to do. This part first expresses support to Brazil's statement, and then makes additional points, detailing how there has been a miscarriage of due process, and thus justifying why Brazil's draft recs must be considered, in the required elaborate manner. Part one is enclosed herewith. Part two will present some comments on and disagreements with regard to the two sets of draft recs that have been submitted on the sub-group's behalf. I am still to write them, so allow me to submit them in the next 12 hours, which will still be the weekend in some parts of the world, and thus within the deadline I hope. Best regards, parminder On Sunday 15 October 2017 06:43 AM, Thiago Braz Jardim Oliveira wrote: Dear all, On behalf of the Brazilian Government, I hereby submit the "Statement of Brazil" and its annex, which are to be annexed to the draft report of the jurisdiction subgroup, submitted on 11 October 2017, for consideration by the CCWG plenary. Best regards, Thiago _____ De: ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org> [ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org> ] em nome de Greg Shatan [gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> ] Enviado: quinta-feira, 12 de outubro de 2017 23:29 Para: accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Cc: acct-staff@icann.org <mailto:acct-staff@icann.org> ; ws2-jurisdiction Assunto: Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Jurisdiction Subgroup Draft Report for CCWG-Accountability Plenary Review All, One of the Subgroup members pointed out a minor editing error in the document. On pages 13-14, there were several mentions of the RAA, when in fact the language quoted and discussed was from the ICANN Terms and Conditions for Registrar Accreditation Application. (The reference was correct in the Executive Summary.) This has now been fixed in the attached. Greg On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 10:10 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> > wrote: All, Some minor formatting errors crept into the Report when it was converted from Word to PDF. A new PDF of the report is attached. I've checked each page to confirm that the formatting errors were resolved. Thank you to Jorge Cancio for catching this problem! Greg On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 7:53 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> > wrote: All, I am pleased to submit the Draft Report from the Jurisdiction Subgroup for consideration by the CCWG-Accountability Plenary. It is my understanding that a minority viewpoint is expected to be submitted. In the interests of time, this will be submitted to the Plenary separately from the Draft Report. During the preparation of the OFAC Recommendation, the Subgroup considered an email where a registrar declined to do business with a potential reseller, based on the registrar's policy of not doing business with people with Iranian passports. The Subgroup also learned that this registrar, which had been registering domains for a number of Iranian nationals, refused to continue to do business with them. The Subgroup has concluded that, to the extent these instances are related to OFAC, the concerns raised by these instances are adequately covered in the Recommendation already without any additional changes. This is not in any way a comment on the validity of these particular concerns. The Subgroup will consider creating "stress tests" based on these scenarios. I look forward to the Plenary's reading of the Draft Report. Best regards, Greg Shatan Rapporteur _______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org <mailto:Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
Dear All Enclosed is the complete document of my dissenting opinion, which now includes part 2 as well (with some modifications in part 1) as a single document. Please ignore the earlier submitted document. This is for CCWG's consideration. Also for jurisdiction sub-group, assuming that it continues to function. Best regards parminder On Sunday 15 October 2017 11:51 PM, parminder wrote:
Dear All
I fully support the excellent "statement of Brazil", which makes the required point very well. The sub-group should consider the draft recommendations made in the statement. In default, the CCWG should directly consider them.
My own dissenting opinion is enclosed. It is in two parts, part 1 is about what was the group's mandate to do but it failed to do. This part first expresses support to Brazil's statement, and then makes additional points, detailing how there has been a miscarriage of due process, and thus justifying why Brazil's draft recs must be considered, in the required elaborate manner. Part one is enclosed herewith.
Part two will present some comments on and disagreements with regard to the two sets of draft recs that have been submitted on the sub-group's behalf. I am still to write them, so allow me to submit them in the next 12 hours, which will still be the weekend in some parts of the world, and thus within the deadline I hope.
Best regards, parminder
On Sunday 15 October 2017 06:43 AM, Thiago Braz Jardim Oliveira wrote:
Dear all,
On behalf of the Brazilian Government, I hereby submit the "Statement of Brazil" and its annex, which are to be annexed to the draft report of the jurisdiction subgroup, submitted on 11 October 2017, for consideration by the CCWG plenary.
Best regards,
Thiago
------------------------------------------------------------------------ *De:* ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org [ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org] em nome de Greg Shatan [gregshatanipc@gmail.com] *Enviado:* quinta-feira, 12 de outubro de 2017 23:29 *Para:* accountability-cross-community@icann.org *Cc:* acct-staff@icann.org; ws2-jurisdiction *Assunto:* Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Jurisdiction Subgroup Draft Report for CCWG-Accountability Plenary Review
All,
One of the Subgroup members pointed out a minor editing error in the document. On pages 13-14, there were several mentions of the RAA, when in fact the language quoted and discussed was from the ICANN Terms and Conditions for Registrar Accreditation Application. (The reference was correct in the Executive Summary.) This has now been fixed in the attached.
Greg
On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 10:10 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> wrote:
All,
Some minor formatting errors crept into the Report when it was converted from Word to PDF. A new PDF of the report is attached. I've checked each page to confirm that the formatting errors were resolved.
Thank you to Jorge Cancio for catching this problem!
Greg
On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 7:53 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> wrote:
All,
I am pleased to submit the Draft Report from the Jurisdiction Subgroup for consideration by the CCWG-Accountability Plenary.
It is my understanding that a minority viewpoint is expected to be submitted. In the interests of time, this will be submitted to the Plenary separately from the Draft Report.
/During the preparation of the OFAC Recommendation, the Subgroup considered an email where a registrar declined to do business with a potential reseller, based on the registrar’s policy of not doing business with people with Iranian passports. The Subgroup also learned that this registrar, which had been registering domains for a number of Iranian nationals, refused to continue to do business with them. The Subgroup has concluded that, to the extent these instances are related to OFAC, the concerns raised by these instances are adequately covered in the Recommendation already without any additional changes. This is not in any way a comment on the validity of these particular concerns. The Subgroup will consider creating "stress tests" based on these scenarios./ / / I look forward to the Plenary's reading of the Draft Report.
Best regards,
Greg Shatan /Rapporteur/
_______________________________________________ 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
By the way, after additional review of these "dissenting" materials I have come up with an interesting finding: none of them actually disagree with the recommendations we did come up with, and neither of them disputes that there is consensus for the actual recommendations. They simply say that the recommendations are not enough for them. So what the dissent is about, really, is that they could not achieve consensus on their own position regarding a much broader take on jurisdiction and immunity. And yet we all know that their position could never achieve consensus. So their disputing the consensus basis of this report amounts to a block what most of us could agree on From: ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of parminder Sent: Monday, October 16, 2017 3:40 AM To: Thiago Braz Jardim Oliveira <thiago.jardim@itamaraty.gov.br>; accountability-cross-community@icann.org Cc: acct-staff@icann.org; gac@icann.org; GAC <gac@gac.icann.org>; ws2-jurisdiction <ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Jurisdiction Subgroup. Draft Report. Statement of Brazil. Annex. To be annexed to the draft report. For consideration by the CCWG. Dear All Enclosed is the complete document of my dissenting opinion, which now includes part 2 as well (with some modifications in part 1) as a single document. Please ignore the earlier submitted document. This is for CCWG's consideration. Also for jurisdiction sub-group, assuming that it continues to function. Best regards parminder On Sunday 15 October 2017 11:51 PM, parminder wrote: Dear All I fully support the excellent "statement of Brazil", which makes the required point very well. The sub-group should consider the draft recommendations made in the statement. In default, the CCWG should directly consider them. My own dissenting opinion is enclosed. It is in two parts, part 1 is about what was the group's mandate to do but it failed to do. This part first expresses support to Brazil's statement, and then makes additional points, detailing how there has been a miscarriage of due process, and thus justifying why Brazil's draft recs must be considered, in the required elaborate manner. Part one is enclosed herewith. Part two will present some comments on and disagreements with regard to the two sets of draft recs that have been submitted on the sub-group's behalf. I am still to write them, so allow me to submit them in the next 12 hours, which will still be the weekend in some parts of the world, and thus within the deadline I hope. Best regards, parminder On Sunday 15 October 2017 06:43 AM, Thiago Braz Jardim Oliveira wrote: Dear all, On behalf of the Brazilian Government, I hereby submit the "Statement of Brazil" and its annex, which are to be annexed to the draft report of the jurisdiction subgroup, submitted on 11 October 2017, for consideration by the CCWG plenary. Best regards, Thiago ________________________________ De: ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org<mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org> [ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org<mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org>] em nome de Greg Shatan [gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>] Enviado: quinta-feira, 12 de outubro de 2017 23:29 Para: accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Cc: acct-staff@icann.org<mailto:acct-staff@icann.org>; ws2-jurisdiction Assunto: Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Jurisdiction Subgroup Draft Report for CCWG-Accountability Plenary Review All, One of the Subgroup members pointed out a minor editing error in the document. On pages 13-14, there were several mentions of the RAA, when in fact the language quoted and discussed was from the ICANN Terms and Conditions for Registrar Accreditation Application. (The reference was correct in the Executive Summary.) This has now been fixed in the attached. Greg On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 10:10 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> wrote: All, Some minor formatting errors crept into the Report when it was converted from Word to PDF. A new PDF of the report is attached. I've checked each page to confirm that the formatting errors were resolved. Thank you to Jorge Cancio for catching this problem! Greg On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 7:53 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> wrote: All, I am pleased to submit the Draft Report from the Jurisdiction Subgroup for consideration by the CCWG-Accountability Plenary. It is my understanding that a minority viewpoint is expected to be submitted. In the interests of time, this will be submitted to the Plenary separately from the Draft Report. During the preparation of the OFAC Recommendation, the Subgroup considered an email where a registrar declined to do business with a potential reseller, based on the registrar's policy of not doing business with people with Iranian passports. The Subgroup also learned that this registrar, which had been registering domains for a number of Iranian nationals, refused to continue to do business with them. The Subgroup has concluded that, to the extent these instances are related to OFAC, the concerns raised by these instances are adequately covered in the Recommendation already without any additional changes. This is not in any way a comment on the validity of these particular concerns. The Subgroup will consider creating "stress tests" based on these scenarios. I look forward to the Plenary's reading of the Draft Report. Best regards, Greg Shatan Rapporteur _______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org<mailto:Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction _______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org<mailto:Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
That is right, Milton. The jurisdiction subgroup moved in the right direction – consensus – but the disagreement is about the “acceptable milestone” within this CCWG. It is by far not enough for Thiago, Parminder, Kavouss and Benedicto. Immunities are a never ending story and a possible compromise may be a recommendation to continue the discussion, based on ongoing problems and possible solutions. Erich Von: Mueller, Milton L<mailto:milton@gatech.edu> Gesendet: Montag, 16. Oktober 2017 19:49 An: parminder<mailto:parminder@itforchange.net>; Thiago Braz Jardim Oliveira<mailto:thiago.jardim@itamaraty.gov.br>; accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Cc: acct-staff@icann.org<mailto:acct-staff@icann.org>; gac@icann.org<mailto:gac@icann.org>; GAC<mailto:gac@gac.icann.org>; ws2-jurisdiction<mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> Betreff: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] [Ws2-jurisdiction] Jurisdiction Subgroup. Draft Report. Statement of Brazil. Annex. To be annexed to the draft report. For consideration by the CCWG. By the way, after additional review of these “dissenting” materials I have come up with an interesting finding: none of them actually disagree with the recommendations we did come up with, and neither of them disputes that there is consensus for the actual recommendations. They simply say that the recommendations are not enough for them. So what the dissent is about, really, is that they could not achieve consensus on their own position regarding a much broader take on jurisdiction and immunity. And yet we all know that their position could never achieve consensus. So their disputing the consensus basis of this report amounts to a block what most of us could agree on From: ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of parminder Sent: Monday, October 16, 2017 3:40 AM To: Thiago Braz Jardim Oliveira <thiago.jardim@itamaraty.gov.br>; accountability-cross-community@icann.org Cc: acct-staff@icann.org; gac@icann.org; GAC <gac@gac.icann.org>; ws2-jurisdiction <ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Jurisdiction Subgroup. Draft Report. Statement of Brazil. Annex. To be annexed to the draft report. For consideration by the CCWG. Dear All Enclosed is the complete document of my dissenting opinion, which now includes part 2 as well (with some modifications in part 1) as a single document. Please ignore the earlier submitted document. This is for CCWG's consideration. Also for jurisdiction sub-group, assuming that it continues to function. Best regards parminder On Sunday 15 October 2017 11:51 PM, parminder wrote: Dear All I fully support the excellent "statement of Brazil", which makes the required point very well. The sub-group should consider the draft recommendations made in the statement. In default, the CCWG should directly consider them. My own dissenting opinion is enclosed. It is in two parts, part 1 is about what was the group's mandate to do but it failed to do. This part first expresses support to Brazil's statement, and then makes additional points, detailing how there has been a miscarriage of due process, and thus justifying why Brazil's draft recs must be considered, in the required elaborate manner. Part one is enclosed herewith. Part two will present some comments on and disagreements with regard to the two sets of draft recs that have been submitted on the sub-group's behalf. I am still to write them, so allow me to submit them in the next 12 hours, which will still be the weekend in some parts of the world, and thus within the deadline I hope. Best regards, parminder On Sunday 15 October 2017 06:43 AM, Thiago Braz Jardim Oliveira wrote: Dear all, On behalf of the Brazilian Government, I hereby submit the "Statement of Brazil" and its annex, which are to be annexed to the draft report of the jurisdiction subgroup, submitted on 11 October 2017, for consideration by the CCWG plenary. Best regards, Thiago ________________________________ De: ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org<mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org> [ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org<mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org>] em nome de Greg Shatan [gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>] Enviado: quinta-feira, 12 de outubro de 2017 23:29 Para: accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Cc: acct-staff@icann.org<mailto:acct-staff@icann.org>; ws2-jurisdiction Assunto: Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Jurisdiction Subgroup Draft Report for CCWG-Accountability Plenary Review All, One of the Subgroup members pointed out a minor editing error in the document. On pages 13-14, there were several mentions of the RAA, when in fact the language quoted and discussed was from the ICANN Terms and Conditions for Registrar Accreditation Application. (The reference was correct in the Executive Summary.) This has now been fixed in the attached. Greg On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 10:10 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> wrote: All, Some minor formatting errors crept into the Report when it was converted from Word to PDF. A new PDF of the report is attached. I've checked each page to confirm that the formatting errors were resolved. Thank you to Jorge Cancio for catching this problem! Greg On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 7:53 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> wrote: All, I am pleased to submit the Draft Report from the Jurisdiction Subgroup for consideration by the CCWG-Accountability Plenary. It is my understanding that a minority viewpoint is expected to be submitted. In the interests of time, this will be submitted to the Plenary separately from the Draft Report. During the preparation of the OFAC Recommendation, the Subgroup considered an email where a registrar declined to do business with a potential reseller, based on the registrar’s policy of not doing business with people with Iranian passports. The Subgroup also learned that this registrar, which had been registering domains for a number of Iranian nationals, refused to continue to do business with them. The Subgroup has concluded that, to the extent these instances are related to OFAC, the concerns raised by these instances are adequately covered in the Recommendation already without any additional changes. This is not in any way a comment on the validity of these particular concerns. The Subgroup will consider creating "stress tests" based on these scenarios. I look forward to the Plenary's reading of the Draft Report. Best regards, Greg Shatan Rapporteur _______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org<mailto:Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction _______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org<mailto:Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
On Monday 16 October 2017 11:18 PM, Mueller, Milton L wrote:
By the way, after additional review of these “dissenting” materials I have come up with an interesting finding: none of them actually disagree with the recommendations we did come up with, and neither of them disputes that there is consensus for the actual recommendations. They simply say that the recommendations are not enough for them.
This is a wrong reading of what is a consensus. Consensus relates to a whole set of recs, and the whole report, not parts of it. One may not otherwise disagree, for instance, with a particular motherhood and apple pie statement (they are meant not be disagreed with), but disagree with it constituting the whole of recs or the report of a group. That would still be an absence of consensus for that statement to be the rec of that group. (Those who are involved with the Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation will know how its final stages to develop a report suffers from a similar dilemma.) A report is as significant in terms of what it does not say as what it says...... If there is no consensus on changing the status quo, there isnt one on keeping it either. And the dissonance is so very significant that some members would want to dissociate from some weak formulations that have been compiled as agreed outcomes of the group, which simply do not address key issues of the mandate given to the group. Let me try to explain it another way. Lets say that there has been a great humanitarian crisis owing to human/ political reasons and a committee is formed to report on its facts and the required action by the world community. If some members try to develop a report that greatly under-reports the nature and extent of the calamity (as is done in this jurisdiction sub group's report regarding facts of the many very significant problems about continued US jurisdiction over a key global governance function) and comes up with some very weak mitigating measures, like saying that for the next many weeks free water supplies should to maintained for the whole area, others members may dissent with that report, without necessarily being against the "water supply" part.... They are apt to disassociate from and condemn the whole report, doing which would certainly be a meaningful exercise, in putting emphasis on what the committee was abdicating from rather than what it was recommending. Similar is the situation with our dissent notes with respect to the jurisdiction sub-group's report.. parminder
So what the dissent is about, really, is that they could not achieve consensus on their own position regarding a much broader take on jurisdiction and immunity. And yet we all know that their position could never achieve consensus. So their disputing the consensus basis of this report amounts to a block what most of us could agree on
*From:*ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *parminder *Sent:* Monday, October 16, 2017 3:40 AM *To:* Thiago Braz Jardim Oliveira <thiago.jardim@itamaraty.gov.br>; accountability-cross-community@icann.org *Cc:* acct-staff@icann.org; gac@icann.org; GAC <gac@gac.icann.org>; ws2-jurisdiction <ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> *Subject:* Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Jurisdiction Subgroup. Draft Report. Statement of Brazil. Annex. To be annexed to the draft report. For consideration by the CCWG.
Dear All
Enclosed is the complete document of my dissenting opinion, which now includes part 2 as well (with some modifications in part 1) as a single document. Please ignore the earlier submitted document.
This is for CCWG's consideration. Also for jurisdiction sub-group, assuming that it continues to function.
Best regards
parminder
On Sunday 15 October 2017 11:51 PM, parminder wrote:
Dear All
I fully support the excellent "statement of Brazil", which makes the required point very well. The sub-group should consider the draft recommendations made in the statement. In default, the CCWG should directly consider them.
My own dissenting opinion is enclosed. It is in two parts, part 1 is about what was the group's mandate to do but it failed to do. This part first expresses support to Brazil's statement, and then makes additional points, detailing how there has been a miscarriage of due process, and thus justifying why Brazil's draft recs must be considered, in the required elaborate manner. Part one is enclosed herewith.
Part two will present some comments on and disagreements with regard to the two sets of draft recs that have been submitted on the sub-group's behalf. I am still to write them, so allow me to submit them in the next 12 hours, which will still be the weekend in some parts of the world, and thus within the deadline I hope.
Best regards, parminder
On Sunday 15 October 2017 06:43 AM, Thiago Braz Jardim Oliveira wrote:
Dear all,
On behalf of the Brazilian Government, I hereby submit the "Statement of Brazil" and its annex, which are to be annexed to the draft report of the jurisdiction subgroup, submitted on 11 October 2017, for consideration by the CCWG plenary.
Best regards,
Thiago
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*De:*ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org>[ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org>] em nome de Greg Shatan [gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>] *Enviado:* quinta-feira, 12 de outubro de 2017 23:29 *Para:* accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> *Cc:* acct-staff@icann.org <mailto:acct-staff@icann.org>; ws2-jurisdiction *Assunto:* Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Jurisdiction Subgroup Draft Report for CCWG-Accountability Plenary Review
All,
One of the Subgroup members pointed out a minor editing error in the document. On pages 13-14, there were several mentions of the RAA, when in fact the language quoted and discussed was from the ICANN Terms and Conditions for Registrar Accreditation Application. (The reference was correct in the Executive Summary.) This has now been fixed in the attached.
Greg
On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 10:10 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> wrote:
All,
Some minor formatting errors crept into the Report when it was converted from Word to PDF. A new PDF of the report is attached. I've checked each page to confirm that the formatting errors were resolved.
Thank you to Jorge Cancio for catching this problem!
Greg
On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 7:53 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> wrote:
All,
I am pleased to submit the Draft Report from the Jurisdiction Subgroup for consideration by the CCWG-Accountability Plenary.
It is my understanding that a minority viewpoint is expected to be submitted. In the interests of time, this will be submitted to the Plenary separately from the Draft Report.
/During the preparation of the OFAC Recommendation, the Subgroup considered an email where a registrar declined to do business with a potential reseller, based on the registrar’s policy of not doing business with people with Iranian passports. The Subgroup also learned that this registrar, which had been registering domains for a number of Iranian nationals, refused to continue to do business with them. The Subgroup has concluded that, to the extent these instances are related to OFAC, the concerns raised by these instances are adequately covered in the Recommendation already without any additional changes. This is not in any way a comment on the validity of these particular concerns. The Subgroup will consider creating "stress tests" based on these scenarios./
I look forward to the Plenary's reading of the Draft Report.
Best regards,
Greg Shatan
/Rapporteur/
_______________________________________________
Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list
Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org <mailto:Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
_______________________________________________
Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list
Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org <mailto:Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
You are, of course, free to try and redefine consensus as you might wish - but that is not really for you or anyone other than the CCWG and its charter to do. By any reasonable definition of consensus, there is consensus on this report in two regards: First, there is general consensus that your views and those of Brazil are not to be adopted. Second there is general consensus (from which you may or may not dissent) that the two recommendations put forward should be adopted. You are, of course, free to join any part of that consensus or, as you seem to have, choose to dissent from the second consensus because of the failure to adopt your view as to the first. Neither decision obscures the fact that the overwhelming majority of the subgroup support both the propositions stated. Paul Paul Rosenzweig <mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com O: +1 (202) 547-0660 M: +1 (202) 329-9650 VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 <http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/> www.redbranchconsulting.com My PGP Key: <https://keys.mailvelope.com/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x9A830097CA066684> https://keys.mailvelope.com/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x9A830097CA066684 From: ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of parminder Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2017 9:33 AM To: Mueller, Milton L <milton@gatech.edu>; Thiago Braz Jardim Oliveira <thiago.jardim@itamaraty.gov.br>; accountability-cross-community@icann.org Cc: acct-staff@icann.org; gac@icann.org; GAC <gac@gac.icann.org>; ws2-jurisdiction <ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Jurisdiction Subgroup. Draft Report. Statement of Brazil. Annex. To be annexed to the draft report. For consideration by the CCWG. On Monday 16 October 2017 11:18 PM, Mueller, Milton L wrote: By the way, after additional review of these "dissenting" materials I have come up with an interesting finding: none of them actually disagree with the recommendations we did come up with, and neither of them disputes that there is consensus for the actual recommendations. They simply say that the recommendations are not enough for them. This is a wrong reading of what is a consensus. Consensus relates to a whole set of recs, and the whole report, not parts of it. One may not otherwise disagree, for instance, with a particular motherhood and apple pie statement (they are meant not be disagreed with), but disagree with it constituting the whole of recs or the report of a group. That would still be an absence of consensus for that statement to be the rec of that group. (Those who are involved with the Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation will know how its final stages to develop a report suffers from a similar dilemma.) A report is as significant in terms of what it does not say as what it says...... If there is no consensus on changing the status quo, there isnt one on keeping it either. And the dissonance is so very significant that some members would want to dissociate from some weak formulations that have been compiled as agreed outcomes of the group, which simply do not address key issues of the mandate given to the group. Let me try to explain it another way. Lets say that there has been a great humanitarian crisis owing to human/ political reasons and a committee is formed to report on its facts and the required action by the world community. If some members try to develop a report that greatly under-reports the nature and extent of the calamity (as is done in this jurisdiction sub group's report regarding facts of the many very significant problems about continued US jurisdiction over a key global governance function) and comes up with some very weak mitigating measures, like saying that for the next many weeks free water supplies should to maintained for the whole area, others members may dissent with that report, without necessarily being against the "water supply" part.... They are apt to disassociate from and condemn the whole report, doing which would certainly be a meaningful exercise, in putting emphasis on what the committee was abdicating from rather than what it was recommending. Similar is the situation with our dissent notes with respect to the jurisdiction sub-group's report.. parminder So what the dissent is about, really, is that they could not achieve consensus on their own position regarding a much broader take on jurisdiction and immunity. And yet we all know that their position could never achieve consensus. So their disputing the consensus basis of this report amounts to a block what most of us could agree on From: ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of parminder Sent: Monday, October 16, 2017 3:40 AM To: Thiago Braz Jardim Oliveira <mailto:thiago.jardim@itamaraty.gov.br> <thiago.jardim@itamaraty.gov.br>; accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Cc: acct-staff@icann.org <mailto:acct-staff@icann.org> ; gac@icann.org <mailto:gac@icann.org> ; GAC <mailto:gac@gac.icann.org> <gac@gac.icann.org>; ws2-jurisdiction <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> <ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Jurisdiction Subgroup. Draft Report. Statement of Brazil. Annex. To be annexed to the draft report. For consideration by the CCWG. Dear All Enclosed is the complete document of my dissenting opinion, which now includes part 2 as well (with some modifications in part 1) as a single document. Please ignore the earlier submitted document. This is for CCWG's consideration. Also for jurisdiction sub-group, assuming that it continues to function. Best regards parminder On Sunday 15 October 2017 11:51 PM, parminder wrote: Dear All I fully support the excellent "statement of Brazil", which makes the required point very well. The sub-group should consider the draft recommendations made in the statement. In default, the CCWG should directly consider them. My own dissenting opinion is enclosed. It is in two parts, part 1 is about what was the group's mandate to do but it failed to do. This part first expresses support to Brazil's statement, and then makes additional points, detailing how there has been a miscarriage of due process, and thus justifying why Brazil's draft recs must be considered, in the required elaborate manner. Part one is enclosed herewith. Part two will present some comments on and disagreements with regard to the two sets of draft recs that have been submitted on the sub-group's behalf. I am still to write them, so allow me to submit them in the next 12 hours, which will still be the weekend in some parts of the world, and thus within the deadline I hope. Best regards, parminder On Sunday 15 October 2017 06:43 AM, Thiago Braz Jardim Oliveira wrote: Dear all, On behalf of the Brazilian Government, I hereby submit the "Statement of Brazil" and its annex, which are to be annexed to the draft report of the jurisdiction subgroup, submitted on 11 October 2017, for consideration by the CCWG plenary. Best regards, Thiago _____ De: <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org> ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org [ <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org> ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org] em nome de Greg Shatan [ <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> gregshatanipc@gmail.com] Enviado: quinta-feira, 12 de outubro de 2017 23:29 Para: <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> accountability-cross-community@icann.org Cc: <mailto:acct-staff@icann.org> acct-staff@icann.org; ws2-jurisdiction Assunto: Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Jurisdiction Subgroup Draft Report for CCWG-Accountability Plenary Review All, One of the Subgroup members pointed out a minor editing error in the document. On pages 13-14, there were several mentions of the RAA, when in fact the language quoted and discussed was from the ICANN Terms and Conditions for Registrar Accreditation Application. (The reference was correct in the Executive Summary.) This has now been fixed in the attached. Greg On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 10:10 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> > wrote: All, Some minor formatting errors crept into the Report when it was converted from Word to PDF. A new PDF of the report is attached. I've checked each page to confirm that the formatting errors were resolved. Thank you to Jorge Cancio for catching this problem! Greg On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 7:53 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> > wrote: All, I am pleased to submit the Draft Report from the Jurisdiction Subgroup for consideration by the CCWG-Accountability Plenary. It is my understanding that a minority viewpoint is expected to be submitted. In the interests of time, this will be submitted to the Plenary separately from the Draft Report. During the preparation of the OFAC Recommendation, the Subgroup considered an email where a registrar declined to do business with a potential reseller, based on the registrar's policy of not doing business with people with Iranian passports. The Subgroup also learned that this registrar, which had been registering domains for a number of Iranian nationals, refused to continue to do business with them. The Subgroup has concluded that, to the extent these instances are related to OFAC, the concerns raised by these instances are adequately covered in the Recommendation already without any additional changes. This is not in any way a comment on the validity of these particular concerns. The Subgroup will consider creating "stress tests" based on these scenarios. I look forward to the Plenary's reading of the Draft Report. Best regards, Greg Shatan Rapporteur _______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org <mailto:Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction _______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org <mailto:Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
Parminder (and Thiago) I respond to this with a very simple set of questions. All of which admit of a simple Yes or No answer: 1. Do you or do you not think that ICANN should seek a general OFAC license for DNS services? 2. Do you or do you not want non-US registrars to be clearly told by ICANN that the RAA does not by itself commit them to abiding by OFAC sanctions? 3. Do you or do you not want to require ICANN to seek an OFAC license for any (non-SDP) registrar who needs it? 4. Do you or do you not want there to be a choice of law addition to the contracted parties' contracts? If you answer No to all these question you are indeed disagreeing with the subgroup recommendations, and you are de facto in favor of upholding the status quo, because the status quo is the only actual alternative to the consensus recommendations. Looking forward to your answers. --MM From: parminder [mailto:parminder@itforchange.net] Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2017 9:33 AM To: Mueller, Milton L <milton@gatech.edu>; Thiago Braz Jardim Oliveira <thiago.jardim@itamaraty.gov.br>; accountability-cross-community@icann.org Cc: acct-staff@icann.org; gac@icann.org; GAC <gac@gac.icann.org>; ws2-jurisdiction <ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Jurisdiction Subgroup. Draft Report. Statement of Brazil. Annex. To be annexed to the draft report. For consideration by the CCWG. On Monday 16 October 2017 11:18 PM, Mueller, Milton L wrote: By the way, after additional review of these "dissenting" materials I have come up with an interesting finding: none of them actually disagree with the recommendations we did come up with, and neither of them disputes that there is consensus for the actual recommendations. They simply say that the recommendations are not enough for them. This is a wrong reading of what is a consensus. Consensus relates to a whole set of recs, and the whole report, not parts of it. One may not otherwise disagree, for instance, with a particular motherhood and apple pie statement (they are meant not be disagreed with), but disagree with it constituting the whole of recs or the report of a group. That would still be an absence of consensus for that statement to be the rec of that group. (Those who are involved with the Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation will know how its final stages to develop a report suffers from a similar dilemma.) A report is as significant in terms of what it does not say as what it says...... If there is no consensus on changing the status quo, there isnt one on keeping it either. And the dissonance is so very significant that some members would want to dissociate from some weak formulations that have been compiled as agreed outcomes of the group, which simply do not address key issues of the mandate given to the group. Let me try to explain it another way. Lets say that there has been a great humanitarian crisis owing to human/ political reasons and a committee is formed to report on its facts and the required action by the world community. If some members try to develop a report that greatly under-reports the nature and extent of the calamity (as is done in this jurisdiction sub group's report regarding facts of the many very significant problems about continued US jurisdiction over a key global governance function) and comes up with some very weak mitigating measures, like saying that for the next many weeks free water supplies should to maintained for the whole area, others members may dissent with that report, without necessarily being against the "water supply" part.... They are apt to disassociate from and condemn the whole report, doing which would certainly be a meaningful exercise, in putting emphasis on what the committee was abdicating from rather than what it was recommending. Similar is the situation with our dissent notes with respect to the jurisdiction sub-group's report.. parminder So what the dissent is about, really, is that they could not achieve consensus on their own position regarding a much broader take on jurisdiction and immunity. And yet we all know that their position could never achieve consensus. So their disputing the consensus basis of this report amounts to a block what most of us could agree on From: ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org<mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of parminder Sent: Monday, October 16, 2017 3:40 AM To: Thiago Braz Jardim Oliveira <thiago.jardim@itamaraty.gov.br><mailto:thiago.jardim@itamaraty.gov.br>; accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Cc: acct-staff@icann.org<mailto:acct-staff@icann.org>; gac@icann.org<mailto:gac@icann.org>; GAC <gac@gac.icann.org><mailto:gac@gac.icann.org>; ws2-jurisdiction <ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org><mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Jurisdiction Subgroup. Draft Report. Statement of Brazil. Annex. To be annexed to the draft report. For consideration by the CCWG. Dear All Enclosed is the complete document of my dissenting opinion, which now includes part 2 as well (with some modifications in part 1) as a single document. Please ignore the earlier submitted document. This is for CCWG's consideration. Also for jurisdiction sub-group, assuming that it continues to function. Best regards parminder On Sunday 15 October 2017 11:51 PM, parminder wrote: Dear All I fully support the excellent "statement of Brazil", which makes the required point very well. The sub-group should consider the draft recommendations made in the statement. In default, the CCWG should directly consider them. My own dissenting opinion is enclosed. It is in two parts, part 1 is about what was the group's mandate to do but it failed to do. This part first expresses support to Brazil's statement, and then makes additional points, detailing how there has been a miscarriage of due process, and thus justifying why Brazil's draft recs must be considered, in the required elaborate manner. Part one is enclosed herewith. Part two will present some comments on and disagreements with regard to the two sets of draft recs that have been submitted on the sub-group's behalf. I am still to write them, so allow me to submit them in the next 12 hours, which will still be the weekend in some parts of the world, and thus within the deadline I hope. Best regards, parminder On Sunday 15 October 2017 06:43 AM, Thiago Braz Jardim Oliveira wrote: Dear all, On behalf of the Brazilian Government, I hereby submit the "Statement of Brazil" and its annex, which are to be annexed to the draft report of the jurisdiction subgroup, submitted on 11 October 2017, for consideration by the CCWG plenary. Best regards, Thiago ________________________________ De: ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org<mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org> [ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org<mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org>] em nome de Greg Shatan [gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>] Enviado: quinta-feira, 12 de outubro de 2017 23:29 Para: accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Cc: acct-staff@icann.org<mailto:acct-staff@icann.org>; ws2-jurisdiction Assunto: Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Jurisdiction Subgroup Draft Report for CCWG-Accountability Plenary Review All, One of the Subgroup members pointed out a minor editing error in the document. On pages 13-14, there were several mentions of the RAA, when in fact the language quoted and discussed was from the ICANN Terms and Conditions for Registrar Accreditation Application. (The reference was correct in the Executive Summary.) This has now been fixed in the attached. Greg On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 10:10 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> wrote: All, Some minor formatting errors crept into the Report when it was converted from Word to PDF. A new PDF of the report is attached. I've checked each page to confirm that the formatting errors were resolved. Thank you to Jorge Cancio for catching this problem! Greg On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 7:53 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> wrote: All, I am pleased to submit the Draft Report from the Jurisdiction Subgroup for consideration by the CCWG-Accountability Plenary. It is my understanding that a minority viewpoint is expected to be submitted. In the interests of time, this will be submitted to the Plenary separately from the Draft Report. During the preparation of the OFAC Recommendation, the Subgroup considered an email where a registrar declined to do business with a potential reseller, based on the registrar's policy of not doing business with people with Iranian passports. The Subgroup also learned that this registrar, which had been registering domains for a number of Iranian nationals, refused to continue to do business with them. The Subgroup has concluded that, to the extent these instances are related to OFAC, the concerns raised by these instances are adequately covered in the Recommendation already without any additional changes. This is not in any way a comment on the validity of these particular concerns. The Subgroup will consider creating "stress tests" based on these scenarios. I look forward to the Plenary's reading of the Draft Report. Best regards, Greg Shatan Rapporteur _______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org<mailto:Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction _______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org<mailto:Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
Dear All, This type of intergation is not legitimate Regards Kavouss On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 5:26 PM, Mueller, Milton L <milton@gatech.edu> wrote:
Parminder (and Thiago)
I respond to this with a very simple set of questions. All of which admit of a simple Yes or No answer:
1. Do you or do you not think that ICANN should seek a general OFAC license for DNS services?
2. Do you or do you not want non-US registrars to be clearly told by ICANN that the RAA does not by itself commit them to abiding by OFAC sanctions?
3. Do you or do you not want to require ICANN to seek an OFAC license for any (non-SDP) registrar who needs it?
4. Do you or do you not want there to be a choice of law addition to the contracted parties’ contracts?
If you answer No to all these question you are indeed disagreeing with the subgroup recommendations, and you are de facto in favor of upholding the status quo, because the status quo is the only actual alternative to the consensus recommendations.
Looking forward to your answers.
--MM
*From:* parminder [mailto:parminder@itforchange.net] *Sent:* Tuesday, October 17, 2017 9:33 AM *To:* Mueller, Milton L <milton@gatech.edu>; Thiago Braz Jardim Oliveira < thiago.jardim@itamaraty.gov.br>; accountability-cross-community@icann.org
*Cc:* acct-staff@icann.org; gac@icann.org; GAC <gac@gac.icann.org>; ws2-jurisdiction <ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> *Subject:* Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Jurisdiction Subgroup. Draft Report. Statement of Brazil. Annex. To be annexed to the draft report. For consideration by the CCWG.
On Monday 16 October 2017 11:18 PM, Mueller, Milton L wrote:
By the way, after additional review of these “dissenting” materials I have come up with an interesting finding: none of them actually disagree with the recommendations we did come up with, and neither of them disputes that there is consensus for the actual recommendations. They simply say that the recommendations are not enough for them.
This is a wrong reading of what is a consensus. Consensus relates to a whole set of recs, and the whole report, not parts of it. One may not otherwise disagree, for instance, with a particular motherhood and apple pie statement (they are meant not be disagreed with), but disagree with it constituting the whole of recs or the report of a group. That would still be an absence of consensus for that statement to be the rec of that group. (Those who are involved with the Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation will know how its final stages to develop a report suffers from a similar dilemma.)
A report is as significant in terms of what it does not say as what it says...... If there is no consensus on changing the status quo, there isnt one on keeping it either. And the dissonance is so very significant that some members would want to dissociate from some weak formulations that have been compiled as agreed outcomes of the group, which simply do not address key issues of the mandate given to the group.
Let me try to explain it another way. Lets say that there has been a great humanitarian crisis owing to human/ political reasons and a committee is formed to report on its facts and the required action by the world community. If some members try to develop a report that greatly under-reports the nature and extent of the calamity (as is done in this jurisdiction sub group's report regarding facts of the many very significant problems about continued US jurisdiction over a key global governance function) and comes up with some very weak mitigating measures, like saying that for the next many weeks free water supplies should to maintained for the whole area, others members may dissent with that report, without necessarily being against the "water supply" part.... They are apt to disassociate from and condemn the whole report, doing which would certainly be a meaningful exercise, in putting emphasis on what the committee was abdicating from rather than what it was recommending. Similar is the situation with our dissent notes with respect to the jurisdiction sub-group's report..
parminder
So what the dissent is about, really, is that they could not achieve consensus on their own position regarding a much broader take on jurisdiction and immunity. And yet we all know that their position could never achieve consensus. So their disputing the consensus basis of this report amounts to a block what most of us could agree on
*From:* ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction- bounces@icann.org <ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org>] *On Behalf Of * parminder *Sent:* Monday, October 16, 2017 3:40 AM *To:* Thiago Braz Jardim Oliveira <thiago.jardim@itamaraty.gov.br> <thiago.jardim@itamaraty.gov.br>; accountability-cross-community@icann.org *Cc:* acct-staff@icann.org; gac@icann.org; GAC <gac@gac.icann.org> <gac@gac.icann.org>; ws2-jurisdiction <ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> <ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> *Subject:* Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Jurisdiction Subgroup. Draft Report. Statement of Brazil. Annex. To be annexed to the draft report. For consideration by the CCWG.
Dear All
Enclosed is the complete document of my dissenting opinion, which now includes part 2 as well (with some modifications in part 1) as a single document. Please ignore the earlier submitted document.
This is for CCWG's consideration. Also for jurisdiction sub-group, assuming that it continues to function.
Best regards
parminder
On Sunday 15 October 2017 11:51 PM, parminder wrote:
Dear All
I fully support the excellent "statement of Brazil", which makes the required point very well. The sub-group should consider the draft recommendations made in the statement. In default, the CCWG should directly consider them.
My own dissenting opinion is enclosed. It is in two parts, part 1 is about what was the group's mandate to do but it failed to do. This part first expresses support to Brazil's statement, and then makes additional points, detailing how there has been a miscarriage of due process, and thus justifying why Brazil's draft recs must be considered, in the required elaborate manner. Part one is enclosed herewith.
Part two will present some comments on and disagreements with regard to the two sets of draft recs that have been submitted on the sub-group's behalf. I am still to write them, so allow me to submit them in the next 12 hours, which will still be the weekend in some parts of the world, and thus within the deadline I hope.
Best regards, parminder
On Sunday 15 October 2017 06:43 AM, Thiago Braz Jardim Oliveira wrote:
Dear all,
On behalf of the Brazilian Government, I hereby submit the "Statement of Brazil" and its annex, which are to be annexed to the draft report of the jurisdiction subgroup, submitted on 11 October 2017, for consideration by the CCWG plenary.
Best regards,
Thiago
------------------------------
*De:* ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org [ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@ icann.org] em nome de Greg Shatan [gregshatanipc@gmail.com] *Enviado:* quinta-feira, 12 de outubro de 2017 23:29 *Para:* accountability-cross-community@icann.org *Cc:* acct-staff@icann.org; ws2-jurisdiction *Assunto:* Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Jurisdiction Subgroup Draft Report for CCWG-Accountability Plenary Review
All,
One of the Subgroup members pointed out a minor editing error in the document. On pages 13-14, there were several mentions of the RAA, when in fact the language quoted and discussed was from the ICANN Terms and Conditions for Registrar Accreditation Application. (The reference was correct in the Executive Summary.) This has now been fixed in the attached.
Greg
On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 10:10 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
All,
Some minor formatting errors crept into the Report when it was converted from Word to PDF. A new PDF of the report is attached. I've checked each page to confirm that the formatting errors were resolved.
Thank you to Jorge Cancio for catching this problem!
Greg
On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 7:53 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
All,
I am pleased to submit the Draft Report from the Jurisdiction Subgroup for consideration by the CCWG-Accountability Plenary.
It is my understanding that a minority viewpoint is expected to be submitted. In the interests of time, this will be submitted to the Plenary separately from the Draft Report.
*During the preparation of the OFAC Recommendation, the Subgroup considered an email where a registrar declined to do business with a potential reseller, based on the registrar’s policy of not doing business with people with Iranian passports. The Subgroup also learned that this registrar, which had been registering domains for a number of Iranian nationals, refused to continue to do business with them. The Subgroup has concluded that, to the extent these instances are related to OFAC, the concerns raised by these instances are adequately covered in the Recommendation already without any additional changes. This is not in any way a comment on the validity of these particular concerns. The Subgroup will consider creating "stress tests" based on these scenarios.*
I look forward to the Plenary's reading of the Draft Report.
Best regards,
Greg Shatan
*Rapporteur*
_______________________________________________
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
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
This was the chance to get our voice heard at ICANN about US sanctions. After 19 years of doing nothing about it, now we have solid recommendations to overcome OFAC issues. At whose expense are these recommendations being opposed to because some want to fight imperialism and windmills. I wish our work would not be undermined, we did real work in jurisdiction group. Of course, there are other issues that need to be discussed, for example, the ccTLD issue is something we reported on. It didn't gain traction. But I believe it does not mean it will never be discussed. Undermining the work of this group will block a very effective way to facilitate access to domain name system for people in sanctioned countries. I hope you consider this when you oppose the recommendations of the subgroup. Farzaneh On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 12:03 PM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com
wrote:
Dear All, This type of intergation is not legitimate Regards Kavouss
On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 5:26 PM, Mueller, Milton L <milton@gatech.edu> wrote:
Parminder (and Thiago)
I respond to this with a very simple set of questions. All of which admit of a simple Yes or No answer:
1. Do you or do you not think that ICANN should seek a general OFAC license for DNS services?
2. Do you or do you not want non-US registrars to be clearly told by ICANN that the RAA does not by itself commit them to abiding by OFAC sanctions?
3. Do you or do you not want to require ICANN to seek an OFAC license for any (non-SDP) registrar who needs it?
4. Do you or do you not want there to be a choice of law addition to the contracted parties’ contracts?
If you answer No to all these question you are indeed disagreeing with the subgroup recommendations, and you are de facto in favor of upholding the status quo, because the status quo is the only actual alternative to the consensus recommendations.
Looking forward to your answers.
--MM
*From:* parminder [mailto:parminder@itforchange.net] *Sent:* Tuesday, October 17, 2017 9:33 AM *To:* Mueller, Milton L <milton@gatech.edu>; Thiago Braz Jardim Oliveira <thiago.jardim@itamaraty.gov.br>; accountability-cross-community @icann.org
*Cc:* acct-staff@icann.org; gac@icann.org; GAC <gac@gac.icann.org>; ws2-jurisdiction <ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> *Subject:* Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Jurisdiction Subgroup. Draft Report. Statement of Brazil. Annex. To be annexed to the draft report. For consideration by the CCWG.
On Monday 16 October 2017 11:18 PM, Mueller, Milton L wrote:
By the way, after additional review of these “dissenting” materials I have come up with an interesting finding: none of them actually disagree with the recommendations we did come up with, and neither of them disputes that there is consensus for the actual recommendations. They simply say that the recommendations are not enough for them.
This is a wrong reading of what is a consensus. Consensus relates to a whole set of recs, and the whole report, not parts of it. One may not otherwise disagree, for instance, with a particular motherhood and apple pie statement (they are meant not be disagreed with), but disagree with it constituting the whole of recs or the report of a group. That would still be an absence of consensus for that statement to be the rec of that group. (Those who are involved with the Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation will know how its final stages to develop a report suffers from a similar dilemma.)
A report is as significant in terms of what it does not say as what it says...... If there is no consensus on changing the status quo, there isnt one on keeping it either. And the dissonance is so very significant that some members would want to dissociate from some weak formulations that have been compiled as agreed outcomes of the group, which simply do not address key issues of the mandate given to the group.
Let me try to explain it another way. Lets say that there has been a great humanitarian crisis owing to human/ political reasons and a committee is formed to report on its facts and the required action by the world community. If some members try to develop a report that greatly under-reports the nature and extent of the calamity (as is done in this jurisdiction sub group's report regarding facts of the many very significant problems about continued US jurisdiction over a key global governance function) and comes up with some very weak mitigating measures, like saying that for the next many weeks free water supplies should to maintained for the whole area, others members may dissent with that report, without necessarily being against the "water supply" part.... They are apt to disassociate from and condemn the whole report, doing which would certainly be a meaningful exercise, in putting emphasis on what the committee was abdicating from rather than what it was recommending. Similar is the situation with our dissent notes with respect to the jurisdiction sub-group's report..
parminder
So what the dissent is about, really, is that they could not achieve consensus on their own position regarding a much broader take on jurisdiction and immunity. And yet we all know that their position could never achieve consensus. So their disputing the consensus basis of this report amounts to a block what most of us could agree on
*From:* ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounc es@icann.org <ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org>] *On Behalf Of * parminder *Sent:* Monday, October 16, 2017 3:40 AM *To:* Thiago Braz Jardim Oliveira <thiago.jardim@itamaraty.gov.br> <thiago.jardim@itamaraty.gov.br>; accountability-cross-community @icann.org *Cc:* acct-staff@icann.org; gac@icann.org; GAC <gac@gac.icann.org> <gac@gac.icann.org>; ws2-jurisdiction <ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> <ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> *Subject:* Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Jurisdiction Subgroup. Draft Report. Statement of Brazil. Annex. To be annexed to the draft report. For consideration by the CCWG.
Dear All
Enclosed is the complete document of my dissenting opinion, which now includes part 2 as well (with some modifications in part 1) as a single document. Please ignore the earlier submitted document.
This is for CCWG's consideration. Also for jurisdiction sub-group, assuming that it continues to function.
Best regards
parminder
On Sunday 15 October 2017 11:51 PM, parminder wrote:
Dear All
I fully support the excellent "statement of Brazil", which makes the required point very well. The sub-group should consider the draft recommendations made in the statement. In default, the CCWG should directly consider them.
My own dissenting opinion is enclosed. It is in two parts, part 1 is about what was the group's mandate to do but it failed to do. This part first expresses support to Brazil's statement, and then makes additional points, detailing how there has been a miscarriage of due process, and thus justifying why Brazil's draft recs must be considered, in the required elaborate manner. Part one is enclosed herewith.
Part two will present some comments on and disagreements with regard to the two sets of draft recs that have been submitted on the sub-group's behalf. I am still to write them, so allow me to submit them in the next 12 hours, which will still be the weekend in some parts of the world, and thus within the deadline I hope.
Best regards, parminder
On Sunday 15 October 2017 06:43 AM, Thiago Braz Jardim Oliveira wrote:
Dear all,
On behalf of the Brazilian Government, I hereby submit the "Statement of Brazil" and its annex, which are to be annexed to the draft report of the jurisdiction subgroup, submitted on 11 October 2017, for consideration by the CCWG plenary.
Best regards,
Thiago
------------------------------
*De:* ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org [ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@ican n.org] em nome de Greg Shatan [gregshatanipc@gmail.com] *Enviado:* quinta-feira, 12 de outubro de 2017 23:29 *Para:* accountability-cross-community@icann.org *Cc:* acct-staff@icann.org; ws2-jurisdiction *Assunto:* Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Jurisdiction Subgroup Draft Report for CCWG-Accountability Plenary Review
All,
One of the Subgroup members pointed out a minor editing error in the document. On pages 13-14, there were several mentions of the RAA, when in fact the language quoted and discussed was from the ICANN Terms and Conditions for Registrar Accreditation Application. (The reference was correct in the Executive Summary.) This has now been fixed in the attached.
Greg
On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 10:10 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
All,
Some minor formatting errors crept into the Report when it was converted from Word to PDF. A new PDF of the report is attached. I've checked each page to confirm that the formatting errors were resolved.
Thank you to Jorge Cancio for catching this problem!
Greg
On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 7:53 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
All,
I am pleased to submit the Draft Report from the Jurisdiction Subgroup for consideration by the CCWG-Accountability Plenary.
It is my understanding that a minority viewpoint is expected to be submitted. In the interests of time, this will be submitted to the Plenary separately from the Draft Report.
*During the preparation of the OFAC Recommendation, the Subgroup considered an email where a registrar declined to do business with a potential reseller, based on the registrar’s policy of not doing business with people with Iranian passports. The Subgroup also learned that this registrar, which had been registering domains for a number of Iranian nationals, refused to continue to do business with them. The Subgroup has concluded that, to the extent these instances are related to OFAC, the concerns raised by these instances are adequately covered in the Recommendation already without any additional changes. This is not in any way a comment on the validity of these particular concerns. The Subgroup will consider creating "stress tests" based on these scenarios.*
I look forward to the Plenary's reading of the Draft Report.
Best regards,
Greg Shatan
*Rapporteur*
_______________________________________________
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
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
I think both Milton's questions and Farzeneh's email get to a fundamental ambiguity in both submissions: It is unclear whether they are expressing a minority viewpoint about each of the recommendations that are in the Subgroup Report (i.e., they do not join the consensus that each recommendation needed in the Subgroup in order to be reported up to the Plenary). In other words, do they dissent from each recommendation set out in the Report? Based on my reading of the submissions, it might be the case that Parminder would answer yes because in his view the stated recommendations do not go far enough. That critique of the recommendations seems clear enough. Some with that same view would join the consensus (since consensus rarely aligns perfectly with any single participant's view), while others will choose not to support the recommendation. It is not entirely clear which "bucket" Parminder falls into. While I assume it is the latter, that needs to be confirmed rather than merely assumed. I am unable to glean a position on the recommendations from the submission of Brazil. At the least, a minority viewpoint needs to be clear on this level, setting aside whatever other issues might be raised. Greg On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 12:22 PM, farzaneh badii <farzaneh.badii@gmail.com> wrote:
This was the chance to get our voice heard at ICANN about US sanctions. After 19 years of doing nothing about it, now we have solid recommendations to overcome OFAC issues. At whose expense are these recommendations being opposed to because some want to fight imperialism and windmills. I wish our work would not be undermined, we did real work in jurisdiction group.
Of course, there are other issues that need to be discussed, for example, the ccTLD issue is something we reported on. It didn't gain traction. But I believe it does not mean it will never be discussed.
Undermining the work of this group will block a very effective way to facilitate access to domain name system for people in sanctioned countries. I hope you consider this when you oppose the recommendations of the subgroup.
Farzaneh
On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 12:03 PM, Kavouss Arasteh < kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear All, This type of intergation is not legitimate Regards Kavouss
On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 5:26 PM, Mueller, Milton L <milton@gatech.edu> wrote:
Parminder (and Thiago)
I respond to this with a very simple set of questions. All of which admit of a simple Yes or No answer:
1. Do you or do you not think that ICANN should seek a general OFAC license for DNS services?
2. Do you or do you not want non-US registrars to be clearly told by ICANN that the RAA does not by itself commit them to abiding by OFAC sanctions?
3. Do you or do you not want to require ICANN to seek an OFAC license for any (non-SDP) registrar who needs it?
4. Do you or do you not want there to be a choice of law addition to the contracted parties’ contracts?
If you answer No to all these question you are indeed disagreeing with the subgroup recommendations, and you are de facto in favor of upholding the status quo, because the status quo is the only actual alternative to the consensus recommendations.
Looking forward to your answers.
--MM
*From:* parminder [mailto:parminder@itforchange.net] *Sent:* Tuesday, October 17, 2017 9:33 AM *To:* Mueller, Milton L <milton@gatech.edu>; Thiago Braz Jardim Oliveira <thiago.jardim@itamaraty.gov.br>; accountability-cross-community@icann.org
*Cc:* acct-staff@icann.org; gac@icann.org; GAC <gac@gac.icann.org>; ws2-jurisdiction <ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> *Subject:* Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Jurisdiction Subgroup. Draft Report. Statement of Brazil. Annex. To be annexed to the draft report. For consideration by the CCWG.
On Monday 16 October 2017 11:18 PM, Mueller, Milton L wrote:
By the way, after additional review of these “dissenting” materials I have come up with an interesting finding: none of them actually disagree with the recommendations we did come up with, and neither of them disputes that there is consensus for the actual recommendations. They simply say that the recommendations are not enough for them.
This is a wrong reading of what is a consensus. Consensus relates to a whole set of recs, and the whole report, not parts of it. One may not otherwise disagree, for instance, with a particular motherhood and apple pie statement (they are meant not be disagreed with), but disagree with it constituting the whole of recs or the report of a group. That would still be an absence of consensus for that statement to be the rec of that group. (Those who are involved with the Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation will know how its final stages to develop a report suffers from a similar dilemma.)
A report is as significant in terms of what it does not say as what it says...... If there is no consensus on changing the status quo, there isnt one on keeping it either. And the dissonance is so very significant that some members would want to dissociate from some weak formulations that have been compiled as agreed outcomes of the group, which simply do not address key issues of the mandate given to the group.
Let me try to explain it another way. Lets say that there has been a great humanitarian crisis owing to human/ political reasons and a committee is formed to report on its facts and the required action by the world community. If some members try to develop a report that greatly under-reports the nature and extent of the calamity (as is done in this jurisdiction sub group's report regarding facts of the many very significant problems about continued US jurisdiction over a key global governance function) and comes up with some very weak mitigating measures, like saying that for the next many weeks free water supplies should to maintained for the whole area, others members may dissent with that report, without necessarily being against the "water supply" part.... They are apt to disassociate from and condemn the whole report, doing which would certainly be a meaningful exercise, in putting emphasis on what the committee was abdicating from rather than what it was recommending. Similar is the situation with our dissent notes with respect to the jurisdiction sub-group's report..
parminder
So what the dissent is about, really, is that they could not achieve consensus on their own position regarding a much broader take on jurisdiction and immunity. And yet we all know that their position could never achieve consensus. So their disputing the consensus basis of this report amounts to a block what most of us could agree on
*From:* ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org [ mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org <ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *parminder *Sent:* Monday, October 16, 2017 3:40 AM *To:* Thiago Braz Jardim Oliveira <thiago.jardim@itamaraty.gov.br> <thiago.jardim@itamaraty.gov.br>; accountability-cross-community @icann.org *Cc:* acct-staff@icann.org; gac@icann.org; GAC <gac@gac.icann.org> <gac@gac.icann.org>; ws2-jurisdiction <ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> <ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> *Subject:* Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Jurisdiction Subgroup. Draft Report. Statement of Brazil. Annex. To be annexed to the draft report. For consideration by the CCWG.
Dear All
Enclosed is the complete document of my dissenting opinion, which now includes part 2 as well (with some modifications in part 1) as a single document. Please ignore the earlier submitted document.
This is for CCWG's consideration. Also for jurisdiction sub-group, assuming that it continues to function.
Best regards
parminder
On Sunday 15 October 2017 11:51 PM, parminder wrote:
Dear All
I fully support the excellent "statement of Brazil", which makes the required point very well. The sub-group should consider the draft recommendations made in the statement. In default, the CCWG should directly consider them.
My own dissenting opinion is enclosed. It is in two parts, part 1 is about what was the group's mandate to do but it failed to do. This part first expresses support to Brazil's statement, and then makes additional points, detailing how there has been a miscarriage of due process, and thus justifying why Brazil's draft recs must be considered, in the required elaborate manner. Part one is enclosed herewith.
Part two will present some comments on and disagreements with regard to the two sets of draft recs that have been submitted on the sub-group's behalf. I am still to write them, so allow me to submit them in the next 12 hours, which will still be the weekend in some parts of the world, and thus within the deadline I hope.
Best regards, parminder
On Sunday 15 October 2017 06:43 AM, Thiago Braz Jardim Oliveira wrote:
Dear all,
On behalf of the Brazilian Government, I hereby submit the "Statement of Brazil" and its annex, which are to be annexed to the draft report of the jurisdiction subgroup, submitted on 11 October 2017, for consideration by the CCWG plenary.
Best regards,
Thiago
------------------------------
*De:* ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org [ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@ican n.org] em nome de Greg Shatan [gregshatanipc@gmail.com] *Enviado:* quinta-feira, 12 de outubro de 2017 23:29 *Para:* accountability-cross-community@icann.org *Cc:* acct-staff@icann.org; ws2-jurisdiction *Assunto:* Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Jurisdiction Subgroup Draft Report for CCWG-Accountability Plenary Review
All,
One of the Subgroup members pointed out a minor editing error in the document. On pages 13-14, there were several mentions of the RAA, when in fact the language quoted and discussed was from the ICANN Terms and Conditions for Registrar Accreditation Application. (The reference was correct in the Executive Summary.) This has now been fixed in the attached.
Greg
On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 10:10 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
All,
Some minor formatting errors crept into the Report when it was converted from Word to PDF. A new PDF of the report is attached. I've checked each page to confirm that the formatting errors were resolved.
Thank you to Jorge Cancio for catching this problem!
Greg
On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 7:53 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
All,
I am pleased to submit the Draft Report from the Jurisdiction Subgroup for consideration by the CCWG-Accountability Plenary.
It is my understanding that a minority viewpoint is expected to be submitted. In the interests of time, this will be submitted to the Plenary separately from the Draft Report.
*During the preparation of the OFAC Recommendation, the Subgroup considered an email where a registrar declined to do business with a potential reseller, based on the registrar’s policy of not doing business with people with Iranian passports. The Subgroup also learned that this registrar, which had been registering domains for a number of Iranian nationals, refused to continue to do business with them. The Subgroup has concluded that, to the extent these instances are related to OFAC, the concerns raised by these instances are adequately covered in the Recommendation already without any additional changes. This is not in any way a comment on the validity of these particular concerns. The Subgroup will consider creating "stress tests" based on these scenarios.*
I look forward to the Plenary's reading of the Draft Report.
Best regards,
Greg Shatan
*Rapporteur*
_______________________________________________
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
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
On Wednesday 18 October 2017 10:24 PM, Greg Shatan wrote:
I think both Milton's questions and Farzeneh's email get to a fundamental ambiguity in both submissions:
It is unclear whether they are expressing a minority viewpoint about each of the recommendations that are in the Subgroup Report (i.e., they do not join the consensus that each recommendation needed in the Subgroup in order to be reported up to the Plenary).
In other words, do they dissent from each recommendation set out in the Report?
Based on my reading of the submissions, it might be the case that Parminder would answer yes because in his view the stated recommendations do not go far enough. That critique of the recommendations seems clear enough. Some with that same view would join the consensus (since consensus rarely aligns perfectly with any single participant's view), while others will choose not to support the recommendation. It is not entirely clear which "bucket" Parminder falls into. While I assume it is the latter, that needs to be confirmed rather than merely assumed.
Yes, the Chair has the right to seek this clarification and in compliance I think my response to Milton makes my position clear. I disagree with these recs for the reasons stated there. I like OFAC related recs but they should be a part of a customised immunity rec . An OFAC general licence is one such partial immunity, but the problem in not seeking a larger immunity is that the same actors that could be hurt by an OFAC can have their DNS related interests compromised by a US court, or a US executive order, or a regulator, all of which problems should be addressed together through a customised immunity under IOI Act. That Trump admin wont grant it is no argument to me. As for choice of law recs, they are extremely problematic in allowing ICANN the option to actually make US and state of California law as the compulsory law for for all ICANN contract. That is a big regression even from the status quo, away from the direction making ICANN a truly international organisation. parminder
I am unable to glean a position on the recommendations from the submission of Brazil.
At the least, a minority viewpoint needs to be clear on this level, setting aside whatever other issues might be raised.
Greg
On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 12:22 PM, farzaneh badii <farzaneh.badii@gmail.com <mailto:farzaneh.badii@gmail.com>> wrote:
This was the chance to get our voice heard at ICANN about US sanctions. After 19 years of doing nothing about it, now we have solid recommendations to overcome OFAC issues. At whose expense are these recommendations being opposed to because some want to fight imperialism and windmills. I wish our work would not be undermined, we did real work in jurisdiction group.
Of course, there are other issues that need to be discussed, for example, the ccTLD issue is something we reported on. It didn't gain traction. But I believe it does not mean it will never be discussed.
Undermining the work of this group will block a very effective way to facilitate access to domain name system for people in sanctioned countries. I hope you consider this when you oppose the recommendations of the subgroup.
Farzaneh
On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 12:03 PM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> wrote:
Dear All, This type of intergation is not legitimate Regards Kavouss
On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 5:26 PM, Mueller, Milton L <milton@gatech.edu <mailto:milton@gatech.edu>> wrote:
Parminder (and Thiago)
I respond to this with a very simple set of questions. All of which admit of a simple Yes or No answer:
1. Do you or do you not think that ICANN should seek a general OFAC license for DNS services?
2. Do you or do you not want non-US registrars to be clearly told by ICANN that the RAA does not by itself commit them to abiding by OFAC sanctions?
3. Do you or do you not want to require ICANN to seek an OFAC license for any (non-SDP) registrar who needs it?
4. Do you or do you not want there to be a choice of law addition to the contracted parties’ contracts?
If you answer No to all these question you are indeed disagreeing with the subgroup recommendations, and you are de facto in favor of upholding the status quo, because the status quo is the only actual alternative to the consensus recommendations.
Looking forward to your answers.
--MM
*From:*parminder [mailto:parminder@itforchange.net <mailto:parminder@itforchange.net>] *Sent:* Tuesday, October 17, 2017 9:33 AM *To:* Mueller, Milton L <milton@gatech.edu <mailto:milton@gatech.edu>>; Thiago Braz Jardim Oliveira <thiago.jardim@itamaraty.gov.br <mailto:thiago.jardim@itamaraty.gov.br>>; accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>
*Cc:* acct-staff@icann.org <mailto:acct-staff@icann.org>; gac@icann.org <mailto:gac@icann.org>; GAC <gac@gac.icann.org <mailto:gac@gac.icann.org>>; ws2-jurisdiction <ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org>> *Subject:* Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Jurisdiction Subgroup. Draft Report. Statement of Brazil. Annex. To be annexed to the draft report. For consideration by the CCWG.
On Monday 16 October 2017 11:18 PM, Mueller, Milton L wrote:
By the way, after additional review of these “dissenting” materials I have come up with an interesting finding: none of them actually disagree with the recommendations we did come up with, and neither of them disputes that there is consensus for the actual recommendations. They simply say that the recommendations are not enough for them.
This is a wrong reading of what is a consensus. Consensus relates to a whole set of recs, and the whole report, not parts of it. One may not otherwise disagree, for instance, with a particular motherhood and apple pie statement (they are meant not be disagreed with), but disagree with it constituting the whole of recs or the report of a group. That would still be an absence of consensus for that statement to be the rec of that group. (Those who are involved with the Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation will know how its final stages to develop a report suffers from a similar dilemma.)
A report is as significant in terms of what it does not say as what it says...... If there is no consensus on changing the status quo, there isnt one on keeping it either. And the dissonance is so very significant that some members would want to dissociate from some weak formulations that have been compiled as agreed outcomes of the group, which simply do not address key issues of the mandate given to the group.
Let me try to explain it another way. Lets say that there has been a great humanitarian crisis owing to human/ political reasons and a committee is formed to report on its facts and the required action by the world community. If some members try to develop a report that greatly under-reports the nature and extent of the calamity (as is done in this jurisdiction sub group's report regarding facts of the many very significant problems about continued US jurisdiction over a key global governance function) and comes up with some very weak mitigating measures, like saying that for the next many weeks free water supplies should to maintained for the whole area, others members may dissent with that report, without necessarily being against the "water supply" part.... They are apt to disassociate from and condemn the whole report, doing which would certainly be a meaningful exercise, in putting emphasis on what the committee was abdicating from rather than what it was recommending. Similar is the situation with our dissent notes with respect to the jurisdiction sub-group's report..
parminder
So what the dissent is about, really, is that they could not achieve consensus on their own position regarding a much broader take on jurisdiction and immunity. And yet we all know that their position could never achieve consensus. So their disputing the consensus basis of this report amounts to a block what most of us could agree on
*From:*ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *parminder *Sent:* Monday, October 16, 2017 3:40 AM *To:* Thiago Braz Jardim Oliveira <thiago.jardim@itamaraty.gov.br> <mailto:thiago.jardim@itamaraty.gov.br>; accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> *Cc:* acct-staff@icann.org <mailto:acct-staff@icann.org>; gac@icann.org <mailto:gac@icann.org>; GAC <gac@gac.icann.org> <mailto:gac@gac.icann.org>; ws2-jurisdiction <ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> *Subject:* Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Jurisdiction Subgroup. Draft Report. Statement of Brazil. Annex. To be annexed to the draft report. For consideration by the CCWG.
Dear All
Enclosed is the complete document of my dissenting opinion, which now includes part 2 as well (with some modifications in part 1) as a single document. Please ignore the earlier submitted document.
This is for CCWG's consideration. Also for jurisdiction sub-group, assuming that it continues to function.
Best regards
parminder
On Sunday 15 October 2017 11:51 PM, parminder wrote:
Dear All
I fully support the excellent "statement of Brazil", which makes the required point very well. The sub-group should consider the draft recommendations made in the statement. In default, the CCWG should directly consider them.
My own dissenting opinion is enclosed. It is in two parts, part 1 is about what was the group's mandate to do but it failed to do. This part first expresses support to Brazil's statement, and then makes additional points, detailing how there has been a miscarriage of due process, and thus justifying why Brazil's draft recs must be considered, in the required elaborate manner. Part one is enclosed herewith.
Part two will present some comments on and disagreements with regard to the two sets of draft recs that have been submitted on the sub-group's behalf. I am still to write them, so allow me to submit them in the next 12 hours, which will still be the weekend in some parts of the world, and thus within the deadline I hope.
Best regards, parminder
On Sunday 15 October 2017 06:43 AM, Thiago Braz Jardim Oliveira wrote:
Dear all,
On behalf of the Brazilian Government, I hereby submit the "Statement of Brazil" and its annex, which are to be annexed to the draft report of the jurisdiction subgroup, submitted on 11 October 2017, for consideration by the CCWG plenary.
Best regards,
Thiago
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*De:*ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org>[ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org>] em nome de Greg Shatan [gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>] *Enviado:* quinta-feira, 12 de outubro de 2017 23:29 *Para:* accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> *Cc:* acct-staff@icann.org <mailto:acct-staff@icann.org>; ws2-jurisdiction *Assunto:* Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Jurisdiction Subgroup Draft Report for CCWG-Accountability Plenary Review
All,
One of the Subgroup members pointed out a minor editing error in the document. On pages 13-14, there were several mentions of the RAA, when in fact the language quoted and discussed was from the ICANN Terms and Conditions for Registrar Accreditation Application. (The reference was correct in the Executive Summary.) This has now been fixed in the attached.
Greg
On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 10:10 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> wrote:
All,
Some minor formatting errors crept into the Report when it was converted from Word to PDF. A new PDF of the report is attached. I've checked each page to confirm that the formatting errors were resolved.
Thank you to Jorge Cancio for catching this problem!
Greg
On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 7:53 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> wrote:
All,
I am pleased to submit the Draft Report from the Jurisdiction Subgroup for consideration by the CCWG-Accountability Plenary.
It is my understanding that a minority viewpoint is expected to be submitted. In the interests of time, this will be submitted to the Plenary separately from the Draft Report.
/During the preparation of the OFAC Recommendation, the Subgroup considered an email where a registrar declined to do business with a potential reseller, based on the registrar’s policy of not doing business with people with Iranian passports. The Subgroup also learned that this registrar, which had been registering domains for a number of Iranian nationals, refused to continue to do business with them. The Subgroup has concluded that, to the extent these instances are related to OFAC, the concerns raised by these instances are adequately covered in the Recommendation already without any additional changes. This is not in any way a comment on the validity of these particular concerns. The Subgroup will consider creating "stress tests" based on these scenarios./
I look forward to the Plenary's reading of the Draft Report.
Best regards,
Greg Shatan
/Rapporteur/
_______________________________________________
Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list
Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org <mailto:Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction>
_______________________________________________
Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list
Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org <mailto:Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction>
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community>
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community>
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community>
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
I cannot speak for Brazil, but on my reading of the October 17 message from Ambassador Benedicto Fonseca, he actually does clarify the situation. He says: “we could entertain changing, as per the results of discussions at the CCWG meeting , the way we have presented recommendations we would like to have seen in the report (the absence of which makes the whole report unacceptable to us), in order to make sure our document is duly formatted as a minority viewpoint and not be seen as additional input for further work at this stage.” So Brazil is not asking us to develop additional recommendations, and does not seem to oppose the recommendations we have, but does not support the full report because it does not include recommendations it would like to see in there. The statement also acknowledges that theirs is a minority viewpoint. Dr. Milton L Mueller Professor, School of Public Policy<http://spp.gatech.edu/> Georgia Institute of Technology Internet Governance Project http://internetgovernance.org/ From: ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Greg Shatan Sent: Wednesday, October 18, 2017 12:54 PM To: Farzaneh Badiei <farzaneh.badii@gmail.com> Cc: accountability-cross-community@icann.org; acct-staff@icann.org; gac@icann.org; GAC <gac@gac.icann.org>; ws2-jurisdiction <ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] [CCWG-ACCT] Jurisdiction Subgroup. Draft Report. Statement of Brazil. Annex. To be annexed to the draft report. For consideration by the CCWG. I think both Milton's questions and Farzeneh's email get to a fundamental ambiguity in both submissions: It is unclear whether they are expressing a minority viewpoint about each of the recommendations that are in the Subgroup Report (i.e., they do not join the consensus that each recommendation needed in the Subgroup in order to be reported up to the Plenary). In other words, do they dissent from each recommendation set out in the Report? Based on my reading of the submissions, it might be the case that Parminder would answer yes because in his view the stated recommendations do not go far enough. That critique of the recommendations seems clear enough. Some with that same view would join the consensus (since consensus rarely aligns perfectly with any single participant's view), while others will choose not to support the recommendation. It is not entirely clear which "bucket" Parminder falls into. While I assume it is the latter, that needs to be confirmed rather than merely assumed. I am unable to glean a position on the recommendations from the submission of Brazil. At the least, a minority viewpoint needs to be clear on this level, setting aside whatever other issues might be raised. Greg On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 12:22 PM, farzaneh badii <farzaneh.badii@gmail.com<mailto:farzaneh.badii@gmail.com>> wrote: This was the chance to get our voice heard at ICANN about US sanctions. After 19 years of doing nothing about it, now we have solid recommendations to overcome OFAC issues. At whose expense are these recommendations being opposed to because some want to fight imperialism and windmills. I wish our work would not be undermined, we did real work in jurisdiction group. Of course, there are other issues that need to be discussed, for example, the ccTLD issue is something we reported on. It didn't gain traction. But I believe it does not mean it will never be discussed. Undermining the work of this group will block a very effective way to facilitate access to domain name system for people in sanctioned countries. I hope you consider this when you oppose the recommendations of the subgroup. Farzaneh On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 12:03 PM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> wrote: Dear All, This type of intergation is not legitimate Regards Kavouss On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 5:26 PM, Mueller, Milton L <milton@gatech.edu<mailto:milton@gatech.edu>> wrote: Parminder (and Thiago) I respond to this with a very simple set of questions. All of which admit of a simple Yes or No answer: 1. Do you or do you not think that ICANN should seek a general OFAC license for DNS services? 2. Do you or do you not want non-US registrars to be clearly told by ICANN that the RAA does not by itself commit them to abiding by OFAC sanctions? 3. Do you or do you not want to require ICANN to seek an OFAC license for any (non-SDP) registrar who needs it? 4. Do you or do you not want there to be a choice of law addition to the contracted parties’ contracts? If you answer No to all these question you are indeed disagreeing with the subgroup recommendations, and you are de facto in favor of upholding the status quo, because the status quo is the only actual alternative to the consensus recommendations. Looking forward to your answers. --MM From: parminder [mailto:parminder@itforchange.net<mailto:parminder@itforchange.net>] Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2017 9:33 AM To: Mueller, Milton L <milton@gatech.edu<mailto:milton@gatech.edu>>; Thiago Braz Jardim Oliveira <thiago.jardim@itamaraty.gov.br<mailto:thiago.jardim@itamaraty.gov.br>>; accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Cc: acct-staff@icann.org<mailto:acct-staff@icann.org>; gac@icann.org<mailto:gac@icann.org>; GAC <gac@gac.icann.org<mailto:gac@gac.icann.org>>; ws2-jurisdiction <ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org<mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Jurisdiction Subgroup. Draft Report. Statement of Brazil. Annex. To be annexed to the draft report. For consideration by the CCWG. On Monday 16 October 2017 11:18 PM, Mueller, Milton L wrote: By the way, after additional review of these “dissenting” materials I have come up with an interesting finding: none of them actually disagree with the recommendations we did come up with, and neither of them disputes that there is consensus for the actual recommendations. They simply say that the recommendations are not enough for them. This is a wrong reading of what is a consensus. Consensus relates to a whole set of recs, and the whole report, not parts of it. One may not otherwise disagree, for instance, with a particular motherhood and apple pie statement (they are meant not be disagreed with), but disagree with it constituting the whole of recs or the report of a group. That would still be an absence of consensus for that statement to be the rec of that group. (Those who are involved with the Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation will know how its final stages to develop a report suffers from a similar dilemma.) A report is as significant in terms of what it does not say as what it says...... If there is no consensus on changing the status quo, there isnt one on keeping it either. And the dissonance is so very significant that some members would want to dissociate from some weak formulations that have been compiled as agreed outcomes of the group, which simply do not address key issues of the mandate given to the group. Let me try to explain it another way. Lets say that there has been a great humanitarian crisis owing to human/ political reasons and a committee is formed to report on its facts and the required action by the world community. If some members try to develop a report that greatly under-reports the nature and extent of the calamity (as is done in this jurisdiction sub group's report regarding facts of the many very significant problems about continued US jurisdiction over a key global governance function) and comes up with some very weak mitigating measures, like saying that for the next many weeks free water supplies should to maintained for the whole area, others members may dissent with that report, without necessarily being against the "water supply" part.... They are apt to disassociate from and condemn the whole report, doing which would certainly be a meaningful exercise, in putting emphasis on what the committee was abdicating from rather than what it was recommending. Similar is the situation with our dissent notes with respect to the jurisdiction sub-group's report.. parminder So what the dissent is about, really, is that they could not achieve consensus on their own position regarding a much broader take on jurisdiction and immunity. And yet we all know that their position could never achieve consensus. So their disputing the consensus basis of this report amounts to a block what most of us could agree on From: ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org<mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of parminder Sent: Monday, October 16, 2017 3:40 AM To: Thiago Braz Jardim Oliveira <thiago.jardim@itamaraty.gov.br><mailto:thiago.jardim@itamaraty.gov.br>; accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Cc: acct-staff@icann.org<mailto:acct-staff@icann.org>; gac@icann.org<mailto:gac@icann.org>; GAC <gac@gac.icann.org><mailto:gac@gac.icann.org>; ws2-jurisdiction <ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org><mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Jurisdiction Subgroup. Draft Report. Statement of Brazil. Annex. To be annexed to the draft report. For consideration by the CCWG. Dear All Enclosed is the complete document of my dissenting opinion, which now includes part 2 as well (with some modifications in part 1) as a single document. Please ignore the earlier submitted document. This is for CCWG's consideration. Also for jurisdiction sub-group, assuming that it continues to function. Best regards parminder On Sunday 15 October 2017 11:51 PM, parminder wrote: Dear All I fully support the excellent "statement of Brazil", which makes the required point very well. The sub-group should consider the draft recommendations made in the statement. In default, the CCWG should directly consider them. My own dissenting opinion is enclosed. It is in two parts, part 1 is about what was the group's mandate to do but it failed to do. This part first expresses support to Brazil's statement, and then makes additional points, detailing how there has been a miscarriage of due process, and thus justifying why Brazil's draft recs must be considered, in the required elaborate manner. Part one is enclosed herewith. Part two will present some comments on and disagreements with regard to the two sets of draft recs that have been submitted on the sub-group's behalf. I am still to write them, so allow me to submit them in the next 12 hours, which will still be the weekend in some parts of the world, and thus within the deadline I hope. Best regards, parminder On Sunday 15 October 2017 06:43 AM, Thiago Braz Jardim Oliveira wrote: Dear all, On behalf of the Brazilian Government, I hereby submit the "Statement of Brazil" and its annex, which are to be annexed to the draft report of the jurisdiction subgroup, submitted on 11 October 2017, for consideration by the CCWG plenary. Best regards, Thiago ________________________________ De: ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org<mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org> [ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org<mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org>] em nome de Greg Shatan [gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>] Enviado: quinta-feira, 12 de outubro de 2017 23:29 Para: accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Cc: acct-staff@icann.org<mailto:acct-staff@icann.org>; ws2-jurisdiction Assunto: Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Jurisdiction Subgroup Draft Report for CCWG-Accountability Plenary Review All, One of the Subgroup members pointed out a minor editing error in the document. On pages 13-14, there were several mentions of the RAA, when in fact the language quoted and discussed was from the ICANN Terms and Conditions for Registrar Accreditation Application. (The reference was correct in the Executive Summary.) This has now been fixed in the attached. Greg On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 10:10 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> wrote: All, Some minor formatting errors crept into the Report when it was converted from Word to PDF. A new PDF of the report is attached. I've checked each page to confirm that the formatting errors were resolved. Thank you to Jorge Cancio for catching this problem! Greg On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 7:53 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> wrote: All, I am pleased to submit the Draft Report from the Jurisdiction Subgroup for consideration by the CCWG-Accountability Plenary. It is my understanding that a minority viewpoint is expected to be submitted. In the interests of time, this will be submitted to the Plenary separately from the Draft Report. During the preparation of the OFAC Recommendation, the Subgroup considered an email where a registrar declined to do business with a potential reseller, based on the registrar’s policy of not doing business with people with Iranian passports. The Subgroup also learned that this registrar, which had been registering domains for a number of Iranian nationals, refused to continue to do business with them. The Subgroup has concluded that, to the extent these instances are related to OFAC, the concerns raised by these instances are adequately covered in the Recommendation already without any additional changes. This is not in any way a comment on the validity of these particular concerns. The Subgroup will consider creating "stress tests" based on these scenarios. I look forward to the Plenary's reading of the Draft Report. Best regards, Greg Shatan Rapporteur _______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org<mailto:Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction _______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org<mailto:Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
On Wednesday 18 October 2017 08:56 PM, Mueller, Milton L wrote:
Parminder (and Thiago)
I respond to this with a very simple set of questions. All of which admit of a simple Yes or No answer:
Milton, it is strange that you yourself do not respond to simple and direct questions, arising from own statements, but insist that others must do it. I mean the question I asked about your main problem with pursuing "customised immunity" solution being that it is impossible to get it from Trump administration...Anyway, I dont want to be seem as distracting from your questions. I think a debate and a consensus making process is one when people do answer other people's question (it is a different matter that in the case of jurisdiction sub group even the Chair does not answer direct questions from members - I had asked him at least 3 times to seek ICANN legal advice on whether it is possible to have immunity for ICANN under US's IOI Act even while protecting ICANN's incorporation under US non profit law, and application of other needed US laws, but he never replied.) Now to your questions.
1. Do you or do you not think that ICANN should seek a general OFAC license for DNS services?
I think ICANN should be exempt from OFAC as a part of a larger deal, which is to have customised immunity under US's International Immunities Act. This makes the issue of an OFAC general licence superfluous. I have no problem with the report recommending that till the time customised immunity can be obtained, ICANN should ask for a general OFAC licence. Or even that, if due to some reasons ICANN is unable to get customised immunity, it shouls ask for a general OFAC license. Since your main objection to seeking customised immunity for ICANN was that Trump administration wont consider it, let me throw in a dampener here. I see no greater chance of Trump admin providing a general OFAC licence to cover ICANN activities than there is for it to provide customised immunity to ICANN under IOI Act. Both you and I know this to be a fact. But if with no chance of Trump admin giving a general OFAC licence to ICANN we can pursue that recommendation, we can as well do so with regard to customised immunity. It is our job to tell what is the right thing for ICANN, let political authorities do it when they can.
2. Do you or do you not want non-US registrars to be clearly told by ICANN that the RAA does not by itself commit them to abiding by OFAC sanctions?
Yes, I think they should be so told. But I dont agree for making this or other recs without making the customised immunity rec....
3. Do you or do you not want to require ICANN to seek an OFAC license for any (non-SDP) registrar who needs it?
Yes, I agree ICANN should. If I remember right I was the first to quote in the sub-group's elist the part from ICANN terms and conditions that said they are under no obligation to seek OFAC license and point to the inappropriateness of it. But I dont agree for making this or other recs without making the customised immunity rec....
4. Do you or do you not want there to be a choice of law addition to the contracted parties’ contracts?
Same answer as above. Although I have a question for you here. I dont see the group having made a clear rec to ICANN to give them a real choice of law, like it would have been if the "menu option" had been exclusively recommended. The menu option is just one among many options given to ICANN and ICANN may choose any... One of the options is actually to make clear that there will only be one set of law governing all contracts- the law of US gov and that of the state of California...... ICANN may well choose this option from the set given in the sub groups recs..... what happens then.... We would have regressed considerably from the current situation where at least choice of law is not mentioned and left open. The question to you is: is my interpretation wrong?
If you answer No to all these question you are indeed disagreeing with the subgroup recommendations,
MY answers are as above, and I am disagreeing with the group's recommendation.
and you are de facto in favor of upholding the status quo, because the status quo is the only actual alternative to the consensus recommendations.
Really, I love the status quo!!! That Thatcherite "there is no alternative" -- you know how activists hate it...
Looking forward to your answers.
I provided them. Now, as a return courtesy , will you answer the question I had asked, and I say it again "You often speak about intellectual honesty. Let me take you up on it: is your problem only about what Trump admin will do with a "jurisdictional immunity for ICANN" proposal? Were you really ready for it before Trump came to power, and when he will not be in power? I hope you do not run away and actually answer these questions." Thanks, parminder
--MM
*From:*parminder [mailto:parminder@itforchange.net] *Sent:* Tuesday, October 17, 2017 9:33 AM *To:* Mueller, Milton L <milton@gatech.edu>; Thiago Braz Jardim Oliveira <thiago.jardim@itamaraty.gov.br>; accountability-cross-community@icann.org *Cc:* acct-staff@icann.org; gac@icann.org; GAC <gac@gac.icann.org>; ws2-jurisdiction <ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> *Subject:* Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Jurisdiction Subgroup. Draft Report. Statement of Brazil. Annex. To be annexed to the draft report. For consideration by the CCWG.
On Monday 16 October 2017 11:18 PM, Mueller, Milton L wrote:
By the way, after additional review of these “dissenting” materials I have come up with an interesting finding: none of them actually disagree with the recommendations we did come up with, and neither of them disputes that there is consensus for the actual recommendations. They simply say that the recommendations are not enough for them.
This is a wrong reading of what is a consensus. Consensus relates to a whole set of recs, and the whole report, not parts of it. One may not otherwise disagree, for instance, with a particular motherhood and apple pie statement (they are meant not be disagreed with), but disagree with it constituting the whole of recs or the report of a group. That would still be an absence of consensus for that statement to be the rec of that group. (Those who are involved with the Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation will know how its final stages to develop a report suffers from a similar dilemma.)
A report is as significant in terms of what it does not say as what it says...... If there is no consensus on changing the status quo, there isnt one on keeping it either. And the dissonance is so very significant that some members would want to dissociate from some weak formulations that have been compiled as agreed outcomes of the group, which simply do not address key issues of the mandate given to the group.
Let me try to explain it another way. Lets say that there has been a great humanitarian crisis owing to human/ political reasons and a committee is formed to report on its facts and the required action by the world community. If some members try to develop a report that greatly under-reports the nature and extent of the calamity (as is done in this jurisdiction sub group's report regarding facts of the many very significant problems about continued US jurisdiction over a key global governance function) and comes up with some very weak mitigating measures, like saying that for the next many weeks free water supplies should to maintained for the whole area, others members may dissent with that report, without necessarily being against the "water supply" part.... They are apt to disassociate from and condemn the whole report, doing which would certainly be a meaningful exercise, in putting emphasis on what the committee was abdicating from rather than what it was recommending. Similar is the situation with our dissent notes with respect to the jurisdiction sub-group's report..
parminder
So what the dissent is about, really, is that they could not achieve consensus on their own position regarding a much broader take on jurisdiction and immunity. And yet we all know that their position could never achieve consensus. So their disputing the consensus basis of this report amounts to a block what most of us could agree on
*From:*ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *parminder *Sent:* Monday, October 16, 2017 3:40 AM *To:* Thiago Braz Jardim Oliveira <thiago.jardim@itamaraty.gov.br> <mailto:thiago.jardim@itamaraty.gov.br>; accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> *Cc:* acct-staff@icann.org <mailto:acct-staff@icann.org>; gac@icann.org <mailto:gac@icann.org>; GAC <gac@gac.icann.org> <mailto:gac@gac.icann.org>; ws2-jurisdiction <ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> *Subject:* Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Jurisdiction Subgroup. Draft Report. Statement of Brazil. Annex. To be annexed to the draft report. For consideration by the CCWG.
Dear All
Enclosed is the complete document of my dissenting opinion, which now includes part 2 as well (with some modifications in part 1) as a single document. Please ignore the earlier submitted document.
This is for CCWG's consideration. Also for jurisdiction sub-group, assuming that it continues to function.
Best regards
parminder
On Sunday 15 October 2017 11:51 PM, parminder wrote:
Dear All
I fully support the excellent "statement of Brazil", which makes the required point very well. The sub-group should consider the draft recommendations made in the statement. In default, the CCWG should directly consider them.
My own dissenting opinion is enclosed. It is in two parts, part 1 is about what was the group's mandate to do but it failed to do. This part first expresses support to Brazil's statement, and then makes additional points, detailing how there has been a miscarriage of due process, and thus justifying why Brazil's draft recs must be considered, in the required elaborate manner. Part one is enclosed herewith.
Part two will present some comments on and disagreements with regard to the two sets of draft recs that have been submitted on the sub-group's behalf. I am still to write them, so allow me to submit them in the next 12 hours, which will still be the weekend in some parts of the world, and thus within the deadline I hope.
Best regards, parminder
On Sunday 15 October 2017 06:43 AM, Thiago Braz Jardim Oliveira wrote:
Dear all,
On behalf of the Brazilian Government, I hereby submit the "Statement of Brazil" and its annex, which are to be annexed to the draft report of the jurisdiction subgroup, submitted on 11 October 2017, for consideration by the CCWG plenary.
Best regards,
Thiago
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*De:*ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org>[ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org>] em nome de Greg Shatan [gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>] *Enviado:* quinta-feira, 12 de outubro de 2017 23:29 *Para:* accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> *Cc:* acct-staff@icann.org <mailto:acct-staff@icann.org>; ws2-jurisdiction *Assunto:* Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Jurisdiction Subgroup Draft Report for CCWG-Accountability Plenary Review
All,
One of the Subgroup members pointed out a minor editing error in the document. On pages 13-14, there were several mentions of the RAA, when in fact the language quoted and discussed was from the ICANN Terms and Conditions for Registrar Accreditation Application. (The reference was correct in the Executive Summary.) This has now been fixed in the attached.
Greg
On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 10:10 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> wrote:
All,
Some minor formatting errors crept into the Report when it was converted from Word to PDF. A new PDF of the report is attached. I've checked each page to confirm that the formatting errors were resolved.
Thank you to Jorge Cancio for catching this problem!
Greg
On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 7:53 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> wrote:
All,
I am pleased to submit the Draft Report from the Jurisdiction Subgroup for consideration by the CCWG-Accountability Plenary.
It is my understanding that a minority viewpoint is expected to be submitted. In the interests of time, this will be submitted to the Plenary separately from the Draft Report.
/During the preparation of the OFAC Recommendation, the Subgroup considered an email where a registrar declined to do business with a potential reseller, based on the registrar’s policy of not doing business with people with Iranian passports. The Subgroup also learned that this registrar, which had been registering domains for a number of Iranian nationals, refused to continue to do business with them. The Subgroup has concluded that, to the extent these instances are related to OFAC, the concerns raised by these instances are adequately covered in the Recommendation already without any additional changes. This is not in any way a comment on the validity of these particular concerns. The Subgroup will consider creating "stress tests" based on these scenarios./
I look forward to the Plenary's reading of the Draft Report.
Best regards,
Greg Shatan
/Rapporteur/
_______________________________________________
Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list
Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org <mailto:Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
_______________________________________________
Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list
Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org <mailto:Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
Let the record show that Parminder answered Yes to all the questions. He supports all the recommendations, but would like a broader immunity. Since your main objection to seeking customised immunity for ICANN was that Trump administration wont consider it, let me throw in a dampener here. I see no greater chance of Trump admin providing a general OFAC licence to cover ICANN activities than there is for it to provide customised immunity to ICANN under IOI Act. An OFAC general license comes from the Treasury Department. The IOI act requires an act of Congress. The latter is a far more political and willing to bow to posturing. Yes, it is also possible that Treasury will not go along, but it is a lot more likely than getting an act of congress. As for this question: is your problem only about what Trump admin will do with a "jurisdictional immunity for ICANN" proposal? Were you really ready for it before Trump came to power, and when he will not be in power? I hope you do not run away and actually answer these questions." I've already answered this question, you just didn't pay attention to the answer. My problem with most forms of immunity, other than IOI, that have been proposed is that most formulations of it make ICANN immune from all kinds of laws that we don't want it to be immune from, and would undermine its accountability. E.g., antitrust law, California laws supporting the empowered community concept, and so on. Dr. Milton L Mueller Professor, School of Public Policy<http://spp.gatech.edu/> Georgia Institute of Technology Internet Governance Project http://internetgovernance.org/ Both you and I know this to be a fact. But if with no chance of Trump admin giving a general OFAC licence to ICANN we can pursue that recommendation, we can as well do so with regard to customised immunity. It is our job to tell what is the right thing for ICANN, let political authorities do it when they can. 1. Do you or do you not want non-US registrars to be clearly told by ICANN that the RAA does not by itself commit them to abiding by OFAC sanctions? Yes, I think they should be so told. But I dont agree for making this or other recs without making the customised immunity rec.... 2. Do you or do you not want to require ICANN to seek an OFAC license for any (non-SDP) registrar who needs it? Yes, I agree ICANN should. If I remember right I was the first to quote in the sub-group's elist the part from ICANN terms and conditions that said they are under no obligation to seek OFAC license and point to the inappropriateness of it. But I dont agree for making this or other recs without making the customised immunity rec.... 3. Do you or do you not want there to be a choice of law addition to the contracted parties' contracts? Same answer as above. Although I have a question for you here. I dont see the group having made a clear rec to ICANN to give them a real choice of law, like it would have been if the "menu option" had been exclusively recommended. The menu option is just one among many options given to ICANN and ICANN may choose any... One of the options is actually to make clear that there will only be one set of law governing all contracts- the law of US gov and that of the state of California...... ICANN may well choose this option from the set given in the sub groups recs..... what happens then.... We would have regressed considerably from the current situation where at least choice of law is not mentioned and left open. The question to you is: is my interpretation wrong? If you answer No to all these question you are indeed disagreeing with the subgroup recommendations, MY answers are as above, and I am disagreeing with the group's recommendation. and you are de facto in favor of upholding the status quo, because the status quo is the only actual alternative to the consensus recommendations. Really, I love the status quo!!! That Thatcherite "there is no alternative" -- you know how activists hate it... Looking forward to your answers. I provided them. Now, as a return courtesy , will you answer the question I had asked, and I say it again "You often speak about intellectual honesty. Let me take you up on it: is your problem only about what Trump admin will do with a "jurisdictional immunity for ICANN" proposal? Were you really ready for it before Trump came to power, and when he will not be in power? I hope you do not run away and actually answer these questions." Thanks, parminder --MM From: parminder [mailto:parminder@itforchange.net] Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2017 9:33 AM To: Mueller, Milton L <milton@gatech.edu><mailto:milton@gatech.edu>; Thiago Braz Jardim Oliveira <thiago.jardim@itamaraty.gov.br><mailto:thiago.jardim@itamaraty.gov.br>; accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Cc: acct-staff@icann.org<mailto:acct-staff@icann.org>; gac@icann.org<mailto:gac@icann.org>; GAC <gac@gac.icann.org><mailto:gac@gac.icann.org>; ws2-jurisdiction <ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org><mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Jurisdiction Subgroup. Draft Report. Statement of Brazil. Annex. To be annexed to the draft report. For consideration by the CCWG. On Monday 16 October 2017 11:18 PM, Mueller, Milton L wrote: By the way, after additional review of these "dissenting" materials I have come up with an interesting finding: none of them actually disagree with the recommendations we did come up with, and neither of them disputes that there is consensus for the actual recommendations. They simply say that the recommendations are not enough for them. This is a wrong reading of what is a consensus. Consensus relates to a whole set of recs, and the whole report, not parts of it. One may not otherwise disagree, for instance, with a particular motherhood and apple pie statement (they are meant not be disagreed with), but disagree with it constituting the whole of recs or the report of a group. That would still be an absence of consensus for that statement to be the rec of that group. (Those who are involved with the Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation will know how its final stages to develop a report suffers from a similar dilemma.) A report is as significant in terms of what it does not say as what it says...... If there is no consensus on changing the status quo, there isnt one on keeping it either. And the dissonance is so very significant that some members would want to dissociate from some weak formulations that have been compiled as agreed outcomes of the group, which simply do not address key issues of the mandate given to the group. Let me try to explain it another way. Lets say that there has been a great humanitarian crisis owing to human/ political reasons and a committee is formed to report on its facts and the required action by the world community. If some members try to develop a report that greatly under-reports the nature and extent of the calamity (as is done in this jurisdiction sub group's report regarding facts of the many very significant problems about continued US jurisdiction over a key global governance function) and comes up with some very weak mitigating measures, like saying that for the next many weeks free water supplies should to maintained for the whole area, others members may dissent with that report, without necessarily being against the "water supply" part.... They are apt to disassociate from and condemn the whole report, doing which would certainly be a meaningful exercise, in putting emphasis on what the committee was abdicating from rather than what it was recommending. Similar is the situation with our dissent notes with respect to the jurisdiction sub-group's report.. parminder So what the dissent is about, really, is that they could not achieve consensus on their own position regarding a much broader take on jurisdiction and immunity. And yet we all know that their position could never achieve consensus. So their disputing the consensus basis of this report amounts to a block what most of us could agree on From: ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org<mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of parminder Sent: Monday, October 16, 2017 3:40 AM To: Thiago Braz Jardim Oliveira <thiago.jardim@itamaraty.gov.br><mailto:thiago.jardim@itamaraty.gov.br>; accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Cc: acct-staff@icann.org<mailto:acct-staff@icann.org>; gac@icann.org<mailto:gac@icann.org>; GAC <gac@gac.icann.org><mailto:gac@gac.icann.org>; ws2-jurisdiction <ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org><mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Jurisdiction Subgroup. Draft Report. Statement of Brazil. Annex. To be annexed to the draft report. For consideration by the CCWG. Dear All Enclosed is the complete document of my dissenting opinion, which now includes part 2 as well (with some modifications in part 1) as a single document. Please ignore the earlier submitted document. This is for CCWG's consideration. Also for jurisdiction sub-group, assuming that it continues to function. Best regards parminder On Sunday 15 October 2017 11:51 PM, parminder wrote: Dear All I fully support the excellent "statement of Brazil", which makes the required point very well. The sub-group should consider the draft recommendations made in the statement. In default, the CCWG should directly consider them. My own dissenting opinion is enclosed. It is in two parts, part 1 is about what was the group's mandate to do but it failed to do. This part first expresses support to Brazil's statement, and then makes additional points, detailing how there has been a miscarriage of due process, and thus justifying why Brazil's draft recs must be considered, in the required elaborate manner. Part one is enclosed herewith. Part two will present some comments on and disagreements with regard to the two sets of draft recs that have been submitted on the sub-group's behalf. I am still to write them, so allow me to submit them in the next 12 hours, which will still be the weekend in some parts of the world, and thus within the deadline I hope. Best regards, parminder On Sunday 15 October 2017 06:43 AM, Thiago Braz Jardim Oliveira wrote: Dear all, On behalf of the Brazilian Government, I hereby submit the "Statement of Brazil" and its annex, which are to be annexed to the draft report of the jurisdiction subgroup, submitted on 11 October 2017, for consideration by the CCWG plenary. Best regards, Thiago ________________________________ De: ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org<mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org> [ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org<mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org>] em nome de Greg Shatan [gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>] Enviado: quinta-feira, 12 de outubro de 2017 23:29 Para: accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Cc: acct-staff@icann.org<mailto:acct-staff@icann.org>; ws2-jurisdiction Assunto: Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Jurisdiction Subgroup Draft Report for CCWG-Accountability Plenary Review All, One of the Subgroup members pointed out a minor editing error in the document. On pages 13-14, there were several mentions of the RAA, when in fact the language quoted and discussed was from the ICANN Terms and Conditions for Registrar Accreditation Application. (The reference was correct in the Executive Summary.) This has now been fixed in the attached. Greg On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 10:10 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> wrote: All, Some minor formatting errors crept into the Report when it was converted from Word to PDF. A new PDF of the report is attached. I've checked each page to confirm that the formatting errors were resolved. Thank you to Jorge Cancio for catching this problem! Greg On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 7:53 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> wrote: All, I am pleased to submit the Draft Report from the Jurisdiction Subgroup for consideration by the CCWG-Accountability Plenary. It is my understanding that a minority viewpoint is expected to be submitted. In the interests of time, this will be submitted to the Plenary separately from the Draft Report. During the preparation of the OFAC Recommendation, the Subgroup considered an email where a registrar declined to do business with a potential reseller, based on the registrar's policy of not doing business with people with Iranian passports. The Subgroup also learned that this registrar, which had been registering domains for a number of Iranian nationals, refused to continue to do business with them. The Subgroup has concluded that, to the extent these instances are related to OFAC, the concerns raised by these instances are adequately covered in the Recommendation already without any additional changes. This is not in any way a comment on the validity of these particular concerns. The Subgroup will consider creating "stress tests" based on these scenarios. I look forward to the Plenary's reading of the Draft Report. Best regards, Greg Shatan Rapporteur _______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org<mailto:Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction _______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org<mailto:Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
On Thursday 19 October 2017 02:40 AM, Mueller, Milton L wrote:
snip
is your problem only about what Trump admin will do with a "jurisdictional immunity for ICANN" proposal? Were you really ready for it before Trump came to power, and when he will not be in power? I hope you do not run away and actually answer these questions."
I’ve already answered this question, you just didn’t pay attention to the answer. My problem with most forms of immunity, other than IOI, that have been proposed is that most formulations of it make ICANN immune from all kinds of laws that we don’t want it to be immune from, and would undermine its accountability. E.g., antitrust law, California laws supporting the empowered community concept, and so on.
So the fact that Turmp admin is unlikely to grant immunity is not your principal problem here. Good to be clear, bec in your earlier email this was the issue you mentioned with partial immunity. Clearly, you will still oppose customised immunity even if any other US admin was in place. You then list your problems with "most forms of immunity, other than IOI"..... But why do so when all customised immunity discussions are taking with regard to IOI Act, and all proposals for immunity I have seen are as under that Act... dont you instead tell your problems with non IOI immunity..... Tell them about immunity under the US's International Organisations Immunity Act becuase that is the proposal on the table... California law supporting ICANN's corporate governance functions including the new community mechanism will be excluded under such IOI immunity..... As for anti-trust law it is possible to carve out things we want to carve out from such immunities. Meanwhile, would you give an example of possible anti-trust issue that ICANN can get into (I understand .xxx also has some such issues in its law suit).... And also remember that US anti-trust machinery works with full regard to US's geo- economic interests, as the FTC did in rejecting its staff's report on anti trust problems with Google, on issues similar to those reg which EU has now found Google guilty.. You want such anti trust enforcements on ICANN that serve US's geo-eco interests? So it is a question whether US's anti trust, and other regulatory and legal machineries, are really the way to keep ICANN on a tight leash...But again, various carve outs are possible.... parminder
Dr. Milton L Mueller
Professor, School of Public Policy <http://spp.gatech.edu/>
Georgia Institute of Technology
Internet Governance Project
http://internetgovernance.org/
Both you and I know this to be a fact. But if with no chance of Trump admin giving a general OFAC licence to ICANN we can pursue that recommendation, we can as well do so with regard to customised immunity. It is our job to tell what is the right thing for ICANN, let political authorities do it when they can.
1. Do you or do you not want non-US registrars to be clearly told by ICANN that the RAA does not by itself commit them to abiding by OFAC sanctions?
Yes, I think they should be so told. But I dont agree for making this or other recs without making the customised immunity rec....
2. Do you or do you not want to require ICANN to seek an OFAC license for any (non-SDP) registrar who needs it?
Yes, I agree ICANN should. If I remember right I was the first to quote in the sub-group's elist the part from ICANN terms and conditions that said they are under no obligation to seek OFAC license and point to the inappropriateness of it. But I dont agree for making this or other recs without making the customised immunity rec....
3. Do you or do you not want there to be a choice of law addition to the contracted parties’ contracts?
Same answer as above.
Although I have a question for you here. I dont see the group having made a clear rec to ICANN to give them a real choice of law, like it would have been if the "menu option" had been exclusively recommended. The menu option is just one among many options given to ICANN and ICANN may choose any... One of the options is actually to make clear that there will only be one set of law governing all contracts- the law of US gov and that of the state of California...... ICANN may well choose this option from the set given in the sub groups recs..... what happens then.... We would have regressed considerably from the current situation where at least choice of law is not mentioned and left open. The question to you is: is my interpretation wrong?
If you answer No to all these question you are indeed disagreeing with the subgroup recommendations,
MY answers are as above, and I am disagreeing with the group's recommendation.
and you are de facto in favor of upholding the status quo, because the status quo is the only actual alternative to the consensus recommendations.
Really, I love the status quo!!! That Thatcherite "there is no alternative" -- you know how activists hate it...
Looking forward to your answers.
I provided them. Now, as a return courtesy , will you answer the question I had asked, and I say it again
"You often speak about intellectual honesty. Let me take you up on it: is your problem only about what Trump admin will do with a "jurisdictional immunity for ICANN" proposal? Were you really ready for it before Trump came to power, and when he will not be in power? I hope you do not run away and actually answer these questions."
Thanks, parminder
--MM
*From:*parminder [mailto:parminder@itforchange.net] *Sent:* Tuesday, October 17, 2017 9:33 AM *To:* Mueller, Milton L <milton@gatech.edu> <mailto:milton@gatech.edu>; Thiago Braz Jardim Oliveira <thiago.jardim@itamaraty.gov.br> <mailto:thiago.jardim@itamaraty.gov.br>; accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> *Cc:* acct-staff@icann.org <mailto:acct-staff@icann.org>; gac@icann.org <mailto:gac@icann.org>; GAC <gac@gac.icann.org> <mailto:gac@gac.icann.org>; ws2-jurisdiction <ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> *Subject:* Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Jurisdiction Subgroup. Draft Report. Statement of Brazil. Annex. To be annexed to the draft report. For consideration by the CCWG.
On Monday 16 October 2017 11:18 PM, Mueller, Milton L wrote:
By the way, after additional review of these “dissenting” materials I have come up with an interesting finding: none of them actually disagree with the recommendations we did come up with, and neither of them disputes that there is consensus for the actual recommendations. They simply say that the recommendations are not enough for them.
This is a wrong reading of what is a consensus. Consensus relates to a whole set of recs, and the whole report, not parts of it. One may not otherwise disagree, for instance, with a particular motherhood and apple pie statement (they are meant not be disagreed with), but disagree with it constituting the whole of recs or the report of a group. That would still be an absence of consensus for that statement to be the rec of that group. (Those who are involved with the Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation will know how its final stages to develop a report suffers from a similar dilemma.)
A report is as significant in terms of what it does not say as what it says...... If there is no consensus on changing the status quo, there isnt one on keeping it either. And the dissonance is so very significant that some members would want to dissociate from some weak formulations that have been compiled as agreed outcomes of the group, which simply do not address key issues of the mandate given to the group.
Let me try to explain it another way. Lets say that there has been a great humanitarian crisis owing to human/ political reasons and a committee is formed to report on its facts and the required action by the world community. If some members try to develop a report that greatly under-reports the nature and extent of the calamity (as is done in this jurisdiction sub group's report regarding facts of the many very significant problems about continued US jurisdiction over a key global governance function) and comes up with some very weak mitigating measures, like saying that for the next many weeks free water supplies should to maintained for the whole area, others members may dissent with that report, without necessarily being against the "water supply" part.... They are apt to disassociate from and condemn the whole report, doing which would certainly be a meaningful exercise, in putting emphasis on what the committee was abdicating from rather than what it was recommending. Similar is the situation with our dissent notes with respect to the jurisdiction sub-group's report..
parminder
So what the dissent is about, really, is that they could not achieve consensus on their own position regarding a much broader take on jurisdiction and immunity. And yet we all know that their position could never achieve consensus. So their disputing the consensus basis of this report amounts to a block what most of us could agree on
*From:*ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *parminder *Sent:* Monday, October 16, 2017 3:40 AM *To:* Thiago Braz Jardim Oliveira <thiago.jardim@itamaraty.gov.br> <mailto:thiago.jardim@itamaraty.gov.br>; accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> *Cc:* acct-staff@icann.org <mailto:acct-staff@icann.org>; gac@icann.org <mailto:gac@icann.org>; GAC <gac@gac.icann.org> <mailto:gac@gac.icann.org>; ws2-jurisdiction <ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> *Subject:* Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Jurisdiction Subgroup. Draft Report. Statement of Brazil. Annex. To be annexed to the draft report. For consideration by the CCWG.
Dear All
Enclosed is the complete document of my dissenting opinion, which now includes part 2 as well (with some modifications in part 1) as a single document. Please ignore the earlier submitted document.
This is for CCWG's consideration. Also for jurisdiction sub-group, assuming that it continues to function.
Best regards
parminder
On Sunday 15 October 2017 11:51 PM, parminder wrote:
Dear All
I fully support the excellent "statement of Brazil", which makes the required point very well. The sub-group should consider the draft recommendations made in the statement. In default, the CCWG should directly consider them.
My own dissenting opinion is enclosed. It is in two parts, part 1 is about what was the group's mandate to do but it failed to do. This part first expresses support to Brazil's statement, and then makes additional points, detailing how there has been a miscarriage of due process, and thus justifying why Brazil's draft recs must be considered, in the required elaborate manner. Part one is enclosed herewith.
Part two will present some comments on and disagreements with regard to the two sets of draft recs that have been submitted on the sub-group's behalf. I am still to write them, so allow me to submit them in the next 12 hours, which will still be the weekend in some parts of the world, and thus within the deadline I hope.
Best regards, parminder
On Sunday 15 October 2017 06:43 AM, Thiago Braz Jardim Oliveira wrote:
Dear all,
On behalf of the Brazilian Government, I hereby submit the "Statement of Brazil" and its annex, which are to be annexed to the draft report of the jurisdiction subgroup, submitted on 11 October 2017, for consideration by the CCWG plenary.
Best regards,
Thiago
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*De:*ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org>[ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org>] em nome de Greg Shatan [gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>] *Enviado:* quinta-feira, 12 de outubro de 2017 23:29 *Para:* accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> *Cc:* acct-staff@icann.org <mailto:acct-staff@icann.org>; ws2-jurisdiction *Assunto:* Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Jurisdiction Subgroup Draft Report for CCWG-Accountability Plenary Review
All,
One of the Subgroup members pointed out a minor editing error in the document. On pages 13-14, there were several mentions of the RAA, when in fact the language quoted and discussed was from the ICANN Terms and Conditions for Registrar Accreditation Application. (The reference was correct in the Executive Summary.) This has now been fixed in the attached.
Greg
On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 10:10 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> wrote:
All,
Some minor formatting errors crept into the Report when it was converted from Word to PDF. A new PDF of the report is attached. I've checked each page to confirm that the formatting errors were resolved.
Thank you to Jorge Cancio for catching this problem!
Greg
On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 7:53 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> wrote:
All,
I am pleased to submit the Draft Report from the Jurisdiction Subgroup for consideration by the CCWG-Accountability Plenary.
It is my understanding that a minority viewpoint is expected to be submitted. In the interests of time, this will be submitted to the Plenary separately from the Draft Report.
/During the preparation of the OFAC Recommendation, the Subgroup considered an email where a registrar declined to do business with a potential reseller, based on the registrar’s policy of not doing business with people with Iranian passports. The Subgroup also learned that this registrar, which had been registering domains for a number of Iranian nationals, refused to continue to do business with them. The Subgroup has concluded that, to the extent these instances are related to OFAC, the concerns raised by these instances are adequately covered in the Recommendation already without any additional changes. This is not in any way a comment on the validity of these particular concerns. The Subgroup will consider creating "stress tests" based on these scenarios./
I look forward to the Plenary's reading of the Draft Report.
Best regards,
Greg Shatan
/Rapporteur/
_______________________________________________
Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list
Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org <mailto:Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
_______________________________________________
Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list
Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org <mailto:Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
Continuing in the spirit of seeking (and hopefully) getting direct answers, Milton, I may well ask; are you for or against the following statement "All governments and jurisdictions should have the same status vis a vis ICANN's global governance operations" And if you for and not against it, can we put it in the agreed recs... parminder PS: let me also add that if you have any other questions or clarifications to seek from me, I am happy to provide them. i think you need to perhaps ask more questions to understand things better rather than claim things like -- seeking "customised immunity" for ICANN involves setting up a new inter-gov organisation. That was a most astounding statement to hear from you at such a late stage of our discussions. On Wednesday 18 October 2017 08:56 PM, Mueller, Milton L wrote:
Parminder (and Thiago)
I respond to this with a very simple set of questions. All of which admit of a simple Yes or No answer:
1. Do you or do you not think that ICANN should seek a general OFAC license for DNS services?
2. Do you or do you not want non-US registrars to be clearly told by ICANN that the RAA does not by itself commit them to abiding by OFAC sanctions?
3. Do you or do you not want to require ICANN to seek an OFAC license for any (non-SDP) registrar who needs it?
4. Do you or do you not want there to be a choice of law addition to the contracted parties’ contracts?
If you answer No to all these question you are indeed disagreeing with the subgroup recommendations, and you are de facto in favor of upholding the status quo, because the status quo is the only actual alternative to the consensus recommendations.
Looking forward to your answers.
--MM
*From:*parminder [mailto:parminder@itforchange.net] *Sent:* Tuesday, October 17, 2017 9:33 AM *To:* Mueller, Milton L <milton@gatech.edu>; Thiago Braz Jardim Oliveira <thiago.jardim@itamaraty.gov.br>; accountability-cross-community@icann.org *Cc:* acct-staff@icann.org; gac@icann.org; GAC <gac@gac.icann.org>; ws2-jurisdiction <ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> *Subject:* Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Jurisdiction Subgroup. Draft Report. Statement of Brazil. Annex. To be annexed to the draft report. For consideration by the CCWG.
On Monday 16 October 2017 11:18 PM, Mueller, Milton L wrote:
By the way, after additional review of these “dissenting” materials I have come up with an interesting finding: none of them actually disagree with the recommendations we did come up with, and neither of them disputes that there is consensus for the actual recommendations. They simply say that the recommendations are not enough for them.
This is a wrong reading of what is a consensus. Consensus relates to a whole set of recs, and the whole report, not parts of it. One may not otherwise disagree, for instance, with a particular motherhood and apple pie statement (they are meant not be disagreed with), but disagree with it constituting the whole of recs or the report of a group. That would still be an absence of consensus for that statement to be the rec of that group. (Those who are involved with the Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation will know how its final stages to develop a report suffers from a similar dilemma.)
A report is as significant in terms of what it does not say as what it says...... If there is no consensus on changing the status quo, there isnt one on keeping it either. And the dissonance is so very significant that some members would want to dissociate from some weak formulations that have been compiled as agreed outcomes of the group, which simply do not address key issues of the mandate given to the group.
Let me try to explain it another way. Lets say that there has been a great humanitarian crisis owing to human/ political reasons and a committee is formed to report on its facts and the required action by the world community. If some members try to develop a report that greatly under-reports the nature and extent of the calamity (as is done in this jurisdiction sub group's report regarding facts of the many very significant problems about continued US jurisdiction over a key global governance function) and comes up with some very weak mitigating measures, like saying that for the next many weeks free water supplies should to maintained for the whole area, others members may dissent with that report, without necessarily being against the "water supply" part.... They are apt to disassociate from and condemn the whole report, doing which would certainly be a meaningful exercise, in putting emphasis on what the committee was abdicating from rather than what it was recommending. Similar is the situation with our dissent notes with respect to the jurisdiction sub-group's report..
parminder
So what the dissent is about, really, is that they could not achieve consensus on their own position regarding a much broader take on jurisdiction and immunity. And yet we all know that their position could never achieve consensus. So their disputing the consensus basis of this report amounts to a block what most of us could agree on
*From:*ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *parminder *Sent:* Monday, October 16, 2017 3:40 AM *To:* Thiago Braz Jardim Oliveira <thiago.jardim@itamaraty.gov.br> <mailto:thiago.jardim@itamaraty.gov.br>; accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> *Cc:* acct-staff@icann.org <mailto:acct-staff@icann.org>; gac@icann.org <mailto:gac@icann.org>; GAC <gac@gac.icann.org> <mailto:gac@gac.icann.org>; ws2-jurisdiction <ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> *Subject:* Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Jurisdiction Subgroup. Draft Report. Statement of Brazil. Annex. To be annexed to the draft report. For consideration by the CCWG.
Dear All
Enclosed is the complete document of my dissenting opinion, which now includes part 2 as well (with some modifications in part 1) as a single document. Please ignore the earlier submitted document.
This is for CCWG's consideration. Also for jurisdiction sub-group, assuming that it continues to function.
Best regards
parminder
On Sunday 15 October 2017 11:51 PM, parminder wrote:
Dear All
I fully support the excellent "statement of Brazil", which makes the required point very well. The sub-group should consider the draft recommendations made in the statement. In default, the CCWG should directly consider them.
My own dissenting opinion is enclosed. It is in two parts, part 1 is about what was the group's mandate to do but it failed to do. This part first expresses support to Brazil's statement, and then makes additional points, detailing how there has been a miscarriage of due process, and thus justifying why Brazil's draft recs must be considered, in the required elaborate manner. Part one is enclosed herewith.
Part two will present some comments on and disagreements with regard to the two sets of draft recs that have been submitted on the sub-group's behalf. I am still to write them, so allow me to submit them in the next 12 hours, which will still be the weekend in some parts of the world, and thus within the deadline I hope.
Best regards, parminder
On Sunday 15 October 2017 06:43 AM, Thiago Braz Jardim Oliveira wrote:
Dear all,
On behalf of the Brazilian Government, I hereby submit the "Statement of Brazil" and its annex, which are to be annexed to the draft report of the jurisdiction subgroup, submitted on 11 October 2017, for consideration by the CCWG plenary.
Best regards,
Thiago
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*De:*ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org>[ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org>] em nome de Greg Shatan [gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>] *Enviado:* quinta-feira, 12 de outubro de 2017 23:29 *Para:* accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> *Cc:* acct-staff@icann.org <mailto:acct-staff@icann.org>; ws2-jurisdiction *Assunto:* Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Jurisdiction Subgroup Draft Report for CCWG-Accountability Plenary Review
All,
One of the Subgroup members pointed out a minor editing error in the document. On pages 13-14, there were several mentions of the RAA, when in fact the language quoted and discussed was from the ICANN Terms and Conditions for Registrar Accreditation Application. (The reference was correct in the Executive Summary.) This has now been fixed in the attached.
Greg
On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 10:10 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> wrote:
All,
Some minor formatting errors crept into the Report when it was converted from Word to PDF. A new PDF of the report is attached. I've checked each page to confirm that the formatting errors were resolved.
Thank you to Jorge Cancio for catching this problem!
Greg
On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 7:53 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> wrote:
All,
I am pleased to submit the Draft Report from the Jurisdiction Subgroup for consideration by the CCWG-Accountability Plenary.
It is my understanding that a minority viewpoint is expected to be submitted. In the interests of time, this will be submitted to the Plenary separately from the Draft Report.
/During the preparation of the OFAC Recommendation, the Subgroup considered an email where a registrar declined to do business with a potential reseller, based on the registrar’s policy of not doing business with people with Iranian passports. The Subgroup also learned that this registrar, which had been registering domains for a number of Iranian nationals, refused to continue to do business with them. The Subgroup has concluded that, to the extent these instances are related to OFAC, the concerns raised by these instances are adequately covered in the Recommendation already without any additional changes. This is not in any way a comment on the validity of these particular concerns. The Subgroup will consider creating "stress tests" based on these scenarios./
I look forward to the Plenary's reading of the Draft Report.
Best regards,
Greg Shatan
/Rapporteur/
_______________________________________________
Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list
Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org <mailto:Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
_______________________________________________
Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list
Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org <mailto:Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
This is a disappointing statement, but it needs to be understood that this is a dissent from a tiny minority whose ideas were not accepted because they were unrealistic and unattainable. It was already known that proposals for an intergovernmental organization governed by some as-yet-nonexistent form of international law had support from only two or three people, and overwhelmingly strong opposition from everyone else. And it was also clear that petitioning the Trump administration and a Republican Congress for an act of Congress granting ICANN immunity would be a blunder of unprecedented magnitude that would achieve exactly the opposite of the proponents' stated objectives. While a small minority was wasting time on a futile attempt to turn the clock back to 1997, the rest of us were confronting real, practical jurisdictional issues. We came up with tangible progress on OFAC and choice of law. These recommendations enjoy overwhelming consensus. Thus, I do not see that this dissent causes any problems. Let them display their petulance and in Abu Dhabi we can discuss and debate it as needed to expose their fallacies and move on. Dr. Milton Mueller Professor, School of Public Policy Georgia Institute of Technology [IGP_logo_gold block_email sig]<http://www.internetgovernance.org/> From: ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Thiago Braz Jardim Oliveira Sent: Saturday, October 14, 2017 9:14 PM To: accountability-cross-community@icann.org Cc: acct-staff@icann.org; gac@icann.org; GAC <gac@gac.icann.org>; ws2-jurisdiction <ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> Subject: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Jurisdiction Subgroup. Draft Report. Statement of Brazil. Annex. To be annexed to the draft report. For consideration by the CCWG. Dear all, On behalf of the Brazilian Government, I hereby submit the "Statement of Brazil" and its annex, which are to be annexed to the draft report of the jurisdiction subgroup, submitted on 11 October 2017, for consideration by the CCWG plenary. Best regards, Thiago ________________________________ De: ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org<mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org> [ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org] em nome de Greg Shatan [gregshatanipc@gmail.com] Enviado: quinta-feira, 12 de outubro de 2017 23:29 Para: accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Cc: acct-staff@icann.org<mailto:acct-staff@icann.org>; ws2-jurisdiction Assunto: Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Jurisdiction Subgroup Draft Report for CCWG-Accountability Plenary Review All, One of the Subgroup members pointed out a minor editing error in the document. On pages 13-14, there were several mentions of the RAA, when in fact the language quoted and discussed was from the ICANN Terms and Conditions for Registrar Accreditation Application. (The reference was correct in the Executive Summary.) This has now been fixed in the attached. Greg On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 10:10 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> wrote: All, Some minor formatting errors crept into the Report when it was converted from Word to PDF. A new PDF of the report is attached. I've checked each page to confirm that the formatting errors were resolved. Thank you to Jorge Cancio for catching this problem! Greg On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 7:53 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> wrote: All, I am pleased to submit the Draft Report from the Jurisdiction Subgroup for consideration by the CCWG-Accountability Plenary. It is my understanding that a minority viewpoint is expected to be submitted. In the interests of time, this will be submitted to the Plenary separately from the Draft Report. During the preparation of the OFAC Recommendation, the Subgroup considered an email where a registrar declined to do business with a potential reseller, based on the registrar's policy of not doing business with people with Iranian passports. The Subgroup also learned that this registrar, which had been registering domains for a number of Iranian nationals, refused to continue to do business with them. The Subgroup has concluded that, to the extent these instances are related to OFAC, the concerns raised by these instances are adequately covered in the Recommendation already without any additional changes. This is not in any way a comment on the validity of these particular concerns. The Subgroup will consider creating "stress tests" based on these scenarios. I look forward to the Plenary's reading of the Draft Report. Best regards, Greg Shatan Rapporteur
+lots On Mon, Oct 16, 2017, 10:44 AM Mueller, Milton L <milton@gatech.edu> wrote:
This is a disappointing statement, but it needs to be understood that this is a dissent from a tiny minority whose ideas were not accepted because they were unrealistic and unattainable.
It was already known that proposals for an intergovernmental organization governed by some as-yet-nonexistent form of international law had support from only two or three people, and overwhelmingly strong opposition from everyone else. And it was also clear that petitioning the Trump administration and a Republican Congress for an act of Congress granting ICANN immunity would be a blunder of unprecedented magnitude that would achieve exactly the opposite of the proponents’ stated objectives.
While a small minority was wasting time on a futile attempt to turn the clock back to 1997, the rest of us were confronting real, practical jurisdictional issues. We came up with tangible progress on OFAC and choice of law. These recommendations enjoy overwhelming consensus. Thus, I do not see that this dissent causes any problems. Let them display their petulance and in Abu Dhabi we can discuss and debate it as needed to expose their fallacies and move on.
Dr. Milton Mueller
Professor, School of Public Policy
Georgia Institute of Technology
[image: IGP_logo_gold block_email sig] <http://www.internetgovernance.org/>
*From:* ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org [mailto: ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Thiago Braz Jardim Oliveira *Sent:* Saturday, October 14, 2017 9:14 PM *To:* accountability-cross-community@icann.org
*Cc:* acct-staff@icann.org; gac@icann.org; GAC <gac@gac.icann.org>; ws2-jurisdiction <ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org>
*Subject:* [Ws2-jurisdiction] Jurisdiction Subgroup. Draft Report. Statement of Brazil. Annex. To be annexed to the draft report. For consideration by the CCWG.
Dear all,
On behalf of the Brazilian Government, I hereby submit the "Statement of Brazil" and its annex, which are to be annexed to the draft report of the jurisdiction subgroup, submitted on 11 October 2017, for consideration by the CCWG plenary.
Best regards,
Thiago
------------------------------
*De:* ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org [ ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org] em nome de Greg Shatan [ gregshatanipc@gmail.com] *Enviado:* quinta-feira, 12 de outubro de 2017 23:29 *Para:* accountability-cross-community@icann.org *Cc:* acct-staff@icann.org; ws2-jurisdiction *Assunto:* Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Jurisdiction Subgroup Draft Report for CCWG-Accountability Plenary Review
All,
One of the Subgroup members pointed out a minor editing error in the document. On pages 13-14, there were several mentions of the RAA, when in fact the language quoted and discussed was from the ICANN Terms and Conditions for Registrar Accreditation Application. (The reference was correct in the Executive Summary.) This has now been fixed in the attached.
Greg
On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 10:10 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
All,
Some minor formatting errors crept into the Report when it was converted from Word to PDF. A new PDF of the report is attached. I've checked each page to confirm that the formatting errors were resolved.
Thank you to Jorge Cancio for catching this problem!
Greg
On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 7:53 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
All,
I am pleased to submit the Draft Report from the Jurisdiction Subgroup for consideration by the CCWG-Accountability Plenary.
It is my understanding that a minority viewpoint is expected to be submitted. In the interests of time, this will be submitted to the Plenary separately from the Draft Report.
*During the preparation of the OFAC Recommendation, the Subgroup considered an email where a registrar declined to do business with a potential reseller, based on the registrar’s policy of not doing business with people with Iranian passports. The Subgroup also learned that this registrar, which had been registering domains for a number of Iranian nationals, refused to continue to do business with them. The Subgroup has concluded that, to the extent these instances are related to OFAC, the concerns raised by these instances are adequately covered in the Recommendation already without any additional changes. This is not in any way a comment on the validity of these particular concerns. The Subgroup will consider creating "stress tests" based on these scenarios.*
I look forward to the Plenary's reading of the Draft Report.
Best regards,
Greg Shatan
*Rapporteur*
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Thank you, Milton. I think Milton's statement raises the question of how do viewpoints such as Milton's, which seem to be aligned with the thinking of many in the Subgroup, get the same prominence as the dissents, which seem to represent the views of only a few in the Subgroup? These views are not really reflected in the Report, since they don't relate to recommendations in the Subgroup Report. Perhaps it would be fair, where the dissents are not merely minority viewpoints on the recommendations made by the Subgroup, for further statements to be allowed within a certain timeframe. Otherwise, we have "dissents" without any indication of the viewpoint(s) they are dissenting from (except as characterized by the dissenter, which would hardly do those other viewpoints justice.). This also raises the question whether the Charter intends that these Subgroup dissents are intended to be part of the package sent out for Public Comment, or are merely to be read by the Plenary. If it is the former, then it is clear to me that accommodations should be made for other viewpoints. Since dissents are not subject to first/second reading or Plenary consensus consideration, this would not pose a procedural problem, while greatly improving the substance of the package. Even if it is only the latter (these are internal documents only), having a record of a viewpoint other than minority viewpoint(s) would seem quite important. Greg On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 11:54 AM, John Laprise <jlaprise@gmail.com> wrote:
+lots
On Mon, Oct 16, 2017, 10:44 AM Mueller, Milton L <milton@gatech.edu> wrote:
This is a disappointing statement, but it needs to be understood that this is a dissent from a tiny minority whose ideas were not accepted because they were unrealistic and unattainable.
It was already known that proposals for an intergovernmental organization governed by some as-yet-nonexistent form of international law had support from only two or three people, and overwhelmingly strong opposition from everyone else. And it was also clear that petitioning the Trump administration and a Republican Congress for an act of Congress granting ICANN immunity would be a blunder of unprecedented magnitude that would achieve exactly the opposite of the proponents’ stated objectives.
While a small minority was wasting time on a futile attempt to turn the clock back to 1997, the rest of us were confronting real, practical jurisdictional issues. We came up with tangible progress on OFAC and choice of law. These recommendations enjoy overwhelming consensus. Thus, I do not see that this dissent causes any problems. Let them display their petulance and in Abu Dhabi we can discuss and debate it as needed to expose their fallacies and move on.
Dr. Milton Mueller
Professor, School of Public Policy
Georgia Institute of Technology
[image: IGP_logo_gold block_email sig] <http://www.internetgovernance.org/>
*From:* ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction- bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Thiago Braz Jardim Oliveira *Sent:* Saturday, October 14, 2017 9:14 PM *To:* accountability-cross-community@icann.org
*Cc:* acct-staff@icann.org; gac@icann.org; GAC <gac@gac.icann.org>; ws2-jurisdiction <ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org>
*Subject:* [Ws2-jurisdiction] Jurisdiction Subgroup. Draft Report. Statement of Brazil. Annex. To be annexed to the draft report. For consideration by the CCWG.
Dear all,
On behalf of the Brazilian Government, I hereby submit the "Statement of Brazil" and its annex, which are to be annexed to the draft report of the jurisdiction subgroup, submitted on 11 October 2017, for consideration by the CCWG plenary.
Best regards,
Thiago
------------------------------
*De:* ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org [ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@ icann.org] em nome de Greg Shatan [gregshatanipc@gmail.com] *Enviado:* quinta-feira, 12 de outubro de 2017 23:29 *Para:* accountability-cross-community@icann.org *Cc:* acct-staff@icann.org; ws2-jurisdiction *Assunto:* Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Jurisdiction Subgroup Draft Report for CCWG-Accountability Plenary Review
All,
One of the Subgroup members pointed out a minor editing error in the document. On pages 13-14, there were several mentions of the RAA, when in fact the language quoted and discussed was from the ICANN Terms and Conditions for Registrar Accreditation Application. (The reference was correct in the Executive Summary.) This has now been fixed in the attached.
Greg
On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 10:10 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
All,
Some minor formatting errors crept into the Report when it was converted from Word to PDF. A new PDF of the report is attached. I've checked each page to confirm that the formatting errors were resolved.
Thank you to Jorge Cancio for catching this problem!
Greg
On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 7:53 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
All,
I am pleased to submit the Draft Report from the Jurisdiction Subgroup for consideration by the CCWG-Accountability Plenary.
It is my understanding that a minority viewpoint is expected to be submitted. In the interests of time, this will be submitted to the Plenary separately from the Draft Report.
*During the preparation of the OFAC Recommendation, the Subgroup considered an email where a registrar declined to do business with a potential reseller, based on the registrar’s policy of not doing business with people with Iranian passports. The Subgroup also learned that this registrar, which had been registering domains for a number of Iranian nationals, refused to continue to do business with them. The Subgroup has concluded that, to the extent these instances are related to OFAC, the concerns raised by these instances are adequately covered in the Recommendation already without any additional changes. This is not in any way a comment on the validity of these particular concerns. The Subgroup will consider creating "stress tests" based on these scenarios.*
I look forward to the Plenary's reading of the Draft Report.
Best regards,
Greg Shatan
*Rapporteur*
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
On Monday 16 October 2017 09:13 PM, Mueller, Milton L wrote:
This is a disappointing statement, but it needs to be understood that this is a dissent from a tiny minority whose ideas were not accepted because they were unrealistic and unattainable.
It was already known that proposals for an intergovernmental organization governed by some as-yet-nonexistent form of international law had support from only two or three people, and overwhelmingly strong opposition from everyone else.
Milton Can you point me to such a proposal in the sub-group's proceedings having been seriously presented and discussed? I myself did not see it. Or are you on the job of creating straw-men!
And it was also clear that petitioning the Trump administration and a Republican Congress for an act of Congress granting ICANN immunity would be a blunder of unprecedented magnitude that would achieve exactly the opposite of the proponents’ stated objectives.
You often speak about intellectual honesty. Let me take you up on it: is your problem only about what Trump admin will do with a "jurisdictional immunity for ICANN" proposal? Were you really ready for it before Trump came to power, and when he will not be in power? I hope you do not run away and actually answer these questions. parminder
While a small minority was wasting time on a futile attempt to turn the clock back to 1997, the rest of us were confronting real, practical jurisdictional issues. We came up with tangible progress on OFAC and choice of law. These recommendations enjoy overwhelming consensus. Thus, I do not see that this dissent causes any problems. Let them display their petulance and in Abu Dhabi we can discuss and debate it as needed to expose their fallacies and move on.
Dr. Milton Mueller
Professor, School of Public Policy
Georgia Institute of Technology
IGP_logo_gold block_email sig <http://www.internetgovernance.org/>
*From:*ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Thiago Braz Jardim Oliveira *Sent:* Saturday, October 14, 2017 9:14 PM *To:* accountability-cross-community@icann.org *Cc:* acct-staff@icann.org; gac@icann.org; GAC <gac@gac.icann.org>; ws2-jurisdiction <ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> *Subject:* [Ws2-jurisdiction] Jurisdiction Subgroup. Draft Report. Statement of Brazil. Annex. To be annexed to the draft report. For consideration by the CCWG.
Dear all,
On behalf of the Brazilian Government, I hereby submit the "Statement of Brazil" and its annex, which are to be annexed to the draft report of the jurisdiction subgroup, submitted on 11 October 2017, for consideration by the CCWG plenary.
Best regards,
Thiago
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*De:*ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org>[ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org] em nome de Greg Shatan [gregshatanipc@gmail.com] *Enviado:* quinta-feira, 12 de outubro de 2017 23:29 *Para:* accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> *Cc:* acct-staff@icann.org <mailto:acct-staff@icann.org>; ws2-jurisdiction *Assunto:* Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Jurisdiction Subgroup Draft Report for CCWG-Accountability Plenary Review
All,
One of the Subgroup members pointed out a minor editing error in the document. On pages 13-14, there were several mentions of the RAA, when in fact the language quoted and discussed was from the ICANN Terms and Conditions for Registrar Accreditation Application. (The reference was correct in the Executive Summary.) This has now been fixed in the attached.
Greg
On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 10:10 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> wrote:
All,
Some minor formatting errors crept into the Report when it was converted from Word to PDF. A new PDF of the report is attached. I've checked each page to confirm that the formatting errors were resolved.
Thank you to Jorge Cancio for catching this problem!
Greg
On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 7:53 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> wrote:
All,
I am pleased to submit the Draft Report from the Jurisdiction Subgroup for consideration by the CCWG-Accountability Plenary.
It is my understanding that a minority viewpoint is expected to be submitted. In the interests of time, this will be submitted to the Plenary separately from the Draft Report.
/During the preparation of the OFAC Recommendation, the Subgroup considered an email where a registrar declined to do business with a potential reseller, based on the registrar’s policy of not doing business with people with Iranian passports. The Subgroup also learned that this registrar, which had been registering domains for a number of Iranian nationals, refused to continue to do business with them. The Subgroup has concluded that, to the extent these instances are related to OFAC, the concerns raised by these instances are adequately covered in the Recommendation already without any additional changes. This is not in any way a comment on the validity of these particular concerns. The Subgroup will consider creating "stress tests" based on these scenarios./
I look forward to the Plenary's reading of the Draft Report.
Best regards,
Greg Shatan
/Rapporteur/
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
participants (9)
-
farzaneh badii -
Greg Shatan -
John Laprise -
Kavouss Arasteh -
Mueller, Milton L -
parminder -
Paul Rosenzweig -
Schweighofer Erich -
Thiago Braz Jardim Oliveira