Thiago, Thank you for allowing me to correct you. The language you say "goes beyond what has been discussed or even hinted at by the subgroup" is taken almost verbatim from the first version of the "Path Forward" proposal circulated and discussed on last week's call. There was no opposition to that aspect of the proposal. Indeed, I softened it slightly, on my own initiative, by adding "likely" before 2-4 issues. As for the "one person, one issue" aspect of the proposal, I'm not sure why you bring that up now. That "more basic question" was answered on the last call and has very clearly been changed in the revised Path Forward email to which you are replying. For your convenience, I'll repeat it here: The Method: Participants should each present one or more issues (with proposed solutions) which they believe are in scope for the Subgroup - If you present more than one issue, please prioritize them (e.g., 1, 2, 3) Finally, I will remind you that each meeting has its own subpage on our Subgroup's wiki, and all of these elements, including the deadline, were posted soon after the last meeting on the page for last week's meeting at https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=69272137. Of course, those who were on the call (like you) needed neither the email nor the wiki page, since you were on the call. It should also be noted that in the original Path Forward proposal, it was clearly stated that these issues would be discussed on the 23 August call. In a perfect world, the email would have gone out earlier, but it was only the latest in several different communications all covering the same ground. I do agree with your exhortation to be efficient as possible in dealing with the issues the participants have proposed. This starts, of course, with the participants being efficient in setting forth those issues, which could see improvement in some instances. Best regards, Greg On Mon, Aug 21, 2017 at 3:02 AM, Thiago Braz Jardim Oliveira < thiago.jardim@itamaraty.gov.br> wrote:

Dear Greg,

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

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

Best,

Thiago

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

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

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

*11 October Deadline*:

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

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

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

· Are within our *remit*.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

o Google sheet is here: *MailScanner has detected definite fraud in the website at "docs.google.com". Do not trust this website:* *MailScanner has detected definite fraud in the website at "docs.google.com". Do not trust this website:* https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/ 1zAMj3Oz8TEqbjauOyqt09Ef-1ada9TrC7i60Mk-7al4/edit?usp=sharing <https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1zAMj3Oz8TEqbjauOyqt09Ef-1ada9TrC7i60...>

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

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

Thank you.

Greg

Dear Greg, Thank you for your reply. I believe it does not do justice to my assertion that the subgroup did not discuss or even hint at your proposal that any recommendation be limited to 2 to 4 issues. If anyone reads last call's transcript, or listens to the recording, they will see that the question of the number of issues to be included in a final recommendation was not really discussed. Yet prudence and care on the part of its proponent, who happens to be also the rapporteur, would recommend that he brings it to the fore, before concluding there is "no opposition to it". (In fact, I was confident we had moved away from that test, which during last call I expressly denounced as giving a disproportionate power to who framed the questions, towards a test where what was needed for the different aspects of the proposal to be approved was the manifestation of "sufficient support"). As to the original e-mail you sent, from which you say the language "2 to 4" is "taken almost verbatim from the first version of the 'Path Forward' proposal circulated", you will agree that this language was not presented in the "approach" you "proposed" and which you highlighted as for our consideration. Here is the part in your original e-mail, which you put in BOLD and coloured letters, and which you introduced as "I would propose the following approach:" [QUOTE] To reach this objective I would propose the following approach: * Each participant should pick one issue which they believe is in scope for us and post that issue to the list prior to our meeting of 23 August. More specifically: * Issues should be very specific -- avoid open-ended, abstract or omnibus issues * Issue description should be succinct -- 12 standard lines maximum * Proposed solutions – if you have a possible solution or recommendation which should be considered, please include it (again, being succinct). * Put your issue in a new email (not a reply), with the subject ISSUE: [name of issue] * The sooner, the better [/QUOTE] That was the "proposal" we discussed, and which the subgroup was able to slightly modify following discussion. Now, I am sure you did not have the intention of deceiving anyone when you did not call our attention to that other aspect of your overall "path forward" that I'm expressing opposition to, namely that any final recommendation by the subgroup should be limited to "2 to 4" issues, by not highlighting it in your original e-mail in the same way you did with respect to everything else. I believe it would be most appropriate not to take "absence of discussion" on that aspect as "absence of opposition". Therefore, in abidance by the requirements of transparency and fair treatment, would you be so kind to ask the question whether there is sufficient support for limiting, at this stage, the number of issues there will be in any final recommendation by the subgroup? My views are that we'd be, once again, putting the cart before the horse. Thank you. Best, Thiago ________________________________ De: Greg Shatan [gregshatanipc@gmail.com] Enviado: segunda-feira, 21 de agosto de 2017 18:09 Para: Thiago Braz Jardim Oliveira Cc: ws2-jurisdiction; acct-staff@icann.org Assunto: Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Jurisdiction Subgroup: The (Revised) Path Forward Thiago, Thank you for allowing me to correct you. The language you say "goes beyond what has been discussed or even hinted at by the subgroup" is taken almost verbatim from the first version of the "Path Forward" proposal circulated and discussed on last week's call. There was no opposition to that aspect of the proposal. Indeed, I softened it slightly, on my own initiative, by adding "likely" before 2-4 issues. As for the "one person, one issue" aspect of the proposal, I'm not sure why you bring that up now. That "more basic question" was answered on the last call and has very clearly been changed in the revised Path Forward email to which you are replying. For your convenience, I'll repeat it here: The Method: Participants should each present one or more issues (with proposed solutions) which they believe are in scope for the Subgroup * If you present more than one issue, please prioritize them (e.g., 1, 2, 3) Finally, I will remind you that each meeting has its own subpage on our Subgroup's wiki, and all of these elements, including the deadline, were posted soon after the last meeting on the page for last week's meeting at https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=69272137. Of course, those who were on the call (like you) needed neither the email nor the wiki page, since you were on the call. It should also be noted that in the original Path Forward proposal, it was clearly stated that these issues would be discussed on the 23 August call. In a perfect world, the email would have gone out earlier, but it was only the latest in several different communications all covering the same ground. I do agree with your exhortation to be efficient as possible in dealing with the issues the participants have proposed. This starts, of course, with the participants being efficient in setting forth those issues, which could see improvement in some instances. Best regards, Greg On Mon, Aug 21, 2017 at 3:02 AM, Thiago Braz Jardim Oliveira <thiago.jardim@itamaraty.gov.br<mailto:thiago.jardim@itamaraty.gov.br>> wrote: Dear Greg, Please correct me if I'm mistaken. As far as I'm aware of, the subgroup has NOT (at least not yet) chosen to limit the number of issues there will be in any final report. So, to my understanding, your suggestion that "we will need to select a handful of issues (likely, 2 to 4)" goes beyond what has been discussed or even hinted at by the subgroup. In fact, with regard to the more basic question as to the number of issues each participant are to suggest for consideration (obviously all with the expectation that they will be retained in a final report to the extent possible), there was NOT significant support for your initial proposed path that would have limited it to "one man/woman one issue". So I'd encourage us not to put the cart before the horse (again) and try to be as efficient as possible in the treatment of the issues participants will have proposed. This could probably lead us to have in a final report more than the "likely, 2 to 4" issues that you suggest, which number the subgroup has never even suggested would be satisfactory. Best, Thiago PS: on a related note, it is regrettable that the message to the list informing all participants that they will have until the 21 August to post issues for consideration was only sent on the very 21 August. ________________________________ De: ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org<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: segunda-feira, 21 de agosto de 2017 0:32 Para: ws2-jurisdiction Cc: acct-staff@icann.org<mailto:acct-staff@icann.org> Assunto: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Jurisdiction Subgroup: The (Revised) Path Forward At our 16 August meeting, we discussed the initial “Path Forward” proposal and various comments from participants. We arrived at the following approach to produce Subgroup recommendations. 11 October Deadline: • Based on the overall timeline for Work Stream 2, the Subgroup has until 11 October to submit a draft report and set of recommendations to the Plenary for first reading. • In other words, we have about seven (7) weeks to develop a draft set of issues and recommendations and come to consensus on these. A Handful of Issues: We will need to select a handful of issues (likely, 2 to 4) which: • Are within our remit. • Will result in recommendations that achieve consensus in the Subgroup. The Challenge: Everyone will have to compromise in order to finalize this limited number of issues over the next very few weeks and work diligently at meetings and on the list to develop recommendations for these particular issues. The Method: Participants should each present one or more issues (with proposed solutions) which they believe are in scope for the Subgroup • If you present more than one issue, please prioritize them (e.g., 1, 2, 3) • Post the issue statement(s) to the list by 23:59 on 21 August for discussion at our meeting of 23 August. • Issues should be very specific -- avoid open-ended, abstract or omnibus issues. • All proposed issue statements should include one or more proposed solutions. • Issue and solution descriptions should be succinct -- 12 standard lines maximum (each). • Send your issue statement to the email list or put it on the Google sheet: o Use a new email (not a reply), with the subject ISSUE: [name of issue]. o Google sheet is here: MailScanner has detected definite fraud in the website at "docs.google.com". Do not trust this website: MailScanner has detected definite fraud in the website at "docs.google.com". Do not trust this website: MailScanner has detected definite fraud in the website at "docs.google.com". Do not trust this website: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1zAMj3Oz8TEqbjauOyqt09Ef-1ada9TrC7i60Mk-7al4/edit?usp=sharing<https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1zAMj3Oz8TEqbjauOyqt09Ef-1ada9TrC7i60Mk-7al4/edit?usp=sharing> • If you put your issue on the Google sheet, notify the email list. • If another participant proposes an issue you wanted to propose, simply post your support for that issue statement. Thank you. Greg

Dear Greg, for your convenience please find attached again the input from the „.swiss“ where issues and possible solutions are identified. Thanks for also including them into the spreadsheet. Regards Jorge Von: Cancio Jorge BAKOM Gesendet: Montag, 21. August 2017 14:35 An: 'Greg Shatan' <gregshatanipc@gmail.com>; ws2-jurisdiction <ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> Cc: acct-staff@icann.org Betreff: AW: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Jurisdiction Subgroup: The (Revised) Path Forward Dear Greg, I just checked the Google Doc and I saw that the issues I have proposed are apparently not included, although you had mentioned that the Email where I had reiterated these prior issue proposal had “been noted”. I would therefore respectfully request their inclusion (see my original Email attached). Thanks and regards

Jorge

Von: ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org<mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org] Im Auftrag von Greg Shatan Gesendet: Montag, 21. August 2017 05:33 An: ws2-jurisdiction <ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org<mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org>> Cc: acct-staff@icann.org<mailto:acct-staff@icann.org> Betreff: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Jurisdiction Subgroup: The (Revised) Path Forward At our 16 August meeting, we discussed the initial “Path Forward” proposal and various comments from participants. We arrived at the following approach to produce Subgroup recommendations. 11 October Deadline: • Based on the overall timeline for Work Stream 2, the Subgroup has until 11 October to submit a draft report and set of recommendations to the Plenary for first reading. • In other words, we have about seven (7) weeks to develop a draft set of issues and recommendations and come to consensus on these. A Handful of Issues: We will need to select a handful of issues (likely, 2 to 4) which: • Are within our remit. • Will result in recommendations that achieve consensus in the Subgroup. The Challenge: Everyone will have to compromise in order to finalize this limited number of issues over the next very few weeks and work diligently at meetings and on the list to develop recommendations for these particular issues. The Method: Participants should each present one or more issues (with proposed solutions) which they believe are in scope for the Subgroup • If you present more than one issue, please prioritize them (e.g., 1, 2, 3) • Post the issue statement(s) to the list by 23:59 on 21 August for discussion at our meeting of 23 August. • Issues should be very specific -- avoid open-ended, abstract or omnibus issues. • All proposed issue statements should include one or more proposed solutions. • Issue and solution descriptions should be succinct -- 12 standard lines maximum (each). • Send your issue statement to the email list or put it on the Google sheet: o Use a new email (not a reply), with the subject ISSUE: [name of issue]. o Google sheet is here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1zAMj3Oz8TEqbjauOyqt09Ef-1ada9TrC7i60... • If you put your issue on the Google sheet, notify the email list. • If another participant proposes an issue you wanted to propose, simply post your support for that issue statement. Thank you. Greg

Dear Greg, Thanks for this info. I've tried myself to include it into the spreasheet but it turned out not to work properly for me. Nonetheless as I understand, a simple Email was also an accepted means to submit the issues which is what I did. Please rank the issues on the .swiss contribution first and the issues on the Email last. thanks and regards Jorge ________________________________ Von: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> Datum: 21. August 2017 um 23:38:35 MESZ An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> Cc: acct-staff@icann.org <acct-staff@icann.org>, ws2-jurisdiction <ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> Betreff: Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Jurisdiction Subgroup: The (Revised) Path Forward Jorge, If you want them in the spreadsheet, our method has been to have the participants enter their own issues into the list. Here's the link to the Google doc spreadsheet: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1zAMj3Oz8TEqbjauOyqt09Ef-1ada9TrC7i60.... Unfortunately, I do not have the time to enter data for participants, nor does our staff support. If you prefer not to do so, tomorrow, Bernie and I will be collating the issues put forward by participants as requested in the Path Forward approach. I assume you want these to be considered your issue submissions. If that is the case, kindly rank the issues you present in order of priority as requested in the Path Forward Approach. Thank you, Greg On Mon, Aug 21, 2017 at 8:35 AM, <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>> wrote: Dear Greg, I just checked the Google Doc and I saw that the issues I have proposed are apparently not included, although you had mentioned that the Email where I had reiterated these prior issue proposal had “been noted”. I would therefore respectfully request their inclusion (see my original Email attached). Thanks and regards

Jorge

Von: ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org<mailto:nces@icann.org> [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org<mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org>] Im Auftrag von Greg Shatan Gesendet: Montag, 21. August 2017 05:33 An: ws2-jurisdiction <ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org<mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org>> Cc: acct-staff@icann.org<mailto:acct-staff@icann.org> Betreff: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Jurisdiction Subgroup: The (Revised) Path Forward At our 16 August meeting, we discussed the initial “Path Forward” proposal and various comments from participants. We arrived at the following approach to produce Subgroup recommendations. 11 October Deadline: • Based on the overall timeline for Work Stream 2, the Subgroup has until 11 October to submit a draft report and set of recommendations to the Plenary for first reading. • In other words, we have about seven (7) weeks to develop a draft set of issues and recommendations and come to consensus on these. A Handful of Issues: We will need to select a handful of issues (likely, 2 to 4) which: • Are within our remit. • Will result in recommendations that achieve consensus in the Subgroup. The Challenge: Everyone will have to compromise in order to finalize this limited number of issues over the next very few weeks and work diligently at meetings and on the list to develop recommendations for these particular issues. The Method: Participants should each present one or more issues (with proposed solutions) which they believe are in scope for the Subgroup • If you present more than one issue, please prioritize them (e.g., 1, 2, 3) • Post the issue statement(s) to the list by 23:59 on 21 August for discussion at our meeting of 23 August. • Issues should be very specific -- avoid open-ended, abstract or omnibus issues. • All proposed issue statements should include one or more proposed solutions. • Issue and solution descriptions should be succinct -- 12 standard lines maximum (each). • Send your issue statement to the email list or put it on the Google sheet: o Use a new email (not a reply), with the subject ISSUE: [name of issue]. o Google sheet is here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1zAMj3Oz8TEqbjauOyqt09Ef-1ada9TrC7i60... • If you put your issue on the Google sheet, notify the email list. • If another participant proposes an issue you wanted to propose, simply post your support for that issue statement. Thank you. Greg ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>> To: <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>>, <ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org<mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org>> Cc: <thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net>> Bcc: Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2017 06:56:00 +0000 Subject: Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Jurisdiction Subgroup: The Path Forward Dear Greg, May I kindly request confirmation that you have read this message and will take the „issues“ I mention on the latest document? (a task where staff could certainly lend a hand) Best regards Jorge Von: ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org<mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org<mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org>] Im Auftrag von Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> Gesendet: Montag, 14. August 2017 08:57 An: gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>; ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org<mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> Cc: thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net> Betreff: Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Jurisdiction Subgroup: The Path Forward Dear Greg and all, Here is my feedback: - The “.swiss” input into the questionnaire still stands, which identifies issues and also some possible solutions. (see attached) - In addition, I would like to recall the following inputs I made to the “influence document” (which I found here: https://community.icann.org/display/WEIA/Jurisdiction): “ICANNs main agreements (with registries and registrars) are generally silent on applicable law. This silence may be construed differently by different courts in different jurisdictions, although I feel there is a natural tendency in courts to apply its own laws if the agreement is silent and there are internal/national rules that tilt into a certain direction. This means that the choice of applicable law may be limited nowadays in practice, which in principle may disadvantage stakeholders not familiar with the implicit choice of law. At the same time, registry agreements for IGO/Governmental entities have some flexibilities built in as to applicable law or, to be more precise, as to conflicts arising from diverging obligations coming from the agreement with ICANN and the international law obligations. This is reflected for instance in section 7.16 of the model registry agreement. This flexibility could be extended to other registries confronted with similar conflicts, not only with international law, but also when confronted with conflicts stemming from national law. The flexibility could also take the form of a more wider recognition of freedom to choose the applicable law for the parties in the main agreements ICANN has. The material you mention has, at least at first glance, some relevant rules of choice of law that in a foreigners eye seem to clearly tilt for the "forum" jurisdiction (for instance the "government interest analysis test"). But, what are the rules followed by California? I see that for “contracts” (most relevant to contracting parties) the second restatement is followed apparently which provides the following: "d.Contract: In the first instance, the courts must give effect to the law chosen by the parties. In the absence of any such agreement, the courts are directed to the “significant relationship” test of Section 6. Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws § 188. The contacts to take into account in determining those principles are: i.the place of contracting, ii.the place of negotiation of the contract, iii.the place of performance, iv.the location of the subject matter of the contract, and v.the domicile, residence, nationality, place of incorporation and place of business of the parties." It would be interesting to know how these contact points are construed in the relation between ICANN and its contracted parties, i.e. what the place of contracting is, the place of negotiation, place of performance, etc. - how they are intended to be construed by the contracting parties and what have been the actual analysis (if any) in the cases had up to today in disputes. For "torts" (I guess including cases brought for damages by materially harmed parties that are not contractually bound to ICANN) the mentioned "governmental interest analysis" seems to apply ("California uses this test in determining the law applicable to tort claims."). This test means that "the law of the forum is presumed to apply unless a party demonstrates otherwise." I feel this could be seen as a significant tilt. Experiences on how these rules (both on contracts and torts) apply in practice could be of interest and could be contrasted with ICANN, and registries and registrars (and other parties) based in other jurisdictions. That fact-finding exercise would also allow us to see whether and in what instances that "tilting" occurs. A similar fact-finding should be done for what “applicable law” applies in internal mechanisms (such as the IRP). 2) Making sure that the hearings of the IRP are location-neutral 3) In the “multiple layers” doc, under “venue”, I had identified the following issues and solutions: “Under venue or venues: multiplicity of venues and of providers of dispute resolution mechanisms (be it judicial or arbitration). Flexibilities as to standards, election of providers, language of proceedings, freedom to choose for the parties.]“ and “I guess that under “venue” we would need to consider the IRP and other internal redress mechanisms and how well they address the needs of a global stakeholder community, in terms of their composition, the language of proceedings, the venue(s), the providers, etc.].” I may have missed other important points made before, but I’m sure Secretariat could help in collating all our essential inputs. Kind regards Jorge Von: ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org<mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org] Im Auftrag von Greg Shatan Gesendet: Samstag, 12. August 2017 01:13 An: ws2-jurisdiction <ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org<mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org>> Cc: Thomas Rickert <thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net>> Betreff: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Jurisdiction Subgroup: The Path Forward Jurisdiction Subgroup Members, As explained by Staff at our last meeting on 9 August, we have until 11 October to submit a draft set of recommendations to the Plenary for consideration as a first reading if any such recommendations are to be accepted by the Plenary, published for Public Consultation and included in the Final WS2 Report. In other words, we have about 8 weeks to develop a draft set of recommendations and come to consensus on these. Obviously, given this time-frame, we have to accept that we will not be able to address all issues. In fact, the only realistic approach, if we want to deliver any recommendations, is to pick a handful of issues (2 to 4) on which we can all agree and for which we believe we can propose recommendations that will achieve consensus. I remain optimistic that we can do this if we can agree, meaning everyone will have to compromise, to select this limited number of issues over the next very few weeks and work diligently at meetings and on the list to develop recommendations for these. To reach this objective I would propose the following approach: * Each participant should pick one issue which they believe is in scope for us and post that issue to the list prior to our meeting of 23 August. More specifically: * Issues should be very specific -- avoid open-ended, abstract or omnibus issues * Issue description should be succinct -- 12 standard lines maximum * Proposed solutions – if you have a possible solution or recommendation which should be considered, please include it (again, being succinct). * Put your issue in a new email (not a reply), with the subject ISSUE: [name of issue] * The sooner, the better I look forward to discussing this proposal at our next meeting of 16 August and I would encourage participants to comment on this proposal in response to this email prior to that meeting. Greg