FINAL DRAFT REVISED REPORT OF JURISDICTION SUBGROUP
All, The final draft of the revised Jurisdiction Subgroup report is attached for your review. The Google doc version is at https://docs.google.com/document/d/1rdMJyvZdyN9TApT6gx_3NwpdvIL7YKHEUD7tNfLf... *PLEASE SPECIFICALLY REVIEW THE SIX "NOTES" IN THE MARGINAL COMMENTS. THESE SHOW WHERE POSSIBLE CHANGES TO THE REPORT HAVE BEEN DISCUSSED AND TENTATIVELY RESOLVED.* *PLEASE RESPOND WITH YOUR POSITION ON THESE SIX NOTES, PARTICULARLY IF YOU OBJECT TO THE RESOLUTION IN THE BODY OF THE REPORT. (Expressions of support are welcome, but not necessary. Lack of response will be interpreted as "Can live with it.")* *THIS IS PARTICULARLY IMPORTANT IF YOU WILL NOT BE ON WEDNESDAY'S CALL, SO YOUR VOICE CAN BE HEARD. The Report must be submitted to the Plenary no later than Friday, March 2 (two days after our call).* Thank you for your review. Best regards, Greg
Dear Greg, Thank you for this. Specifically on the comments and sugestions of changes featuring on page 11, I think you may have misread my suggestion of adding some text in there, which would be, as agreed during the call, part of the “SUMMARY OF WORK OF SUBGROUP BEFORE, DURING AND AFTER COMMENT PERIOD”. My main point was that we should include on page 11, as part of the summary of what happened following in particular the objection to the report by some of the participants, that it was subsequently recognised in the report, prior to its being submitted to public comments, that “further discussions of jurisdiction-related concerns” (p. 26 of the report) are needed, in particular on the subject of immunities. This would describe what happened, in terms of process as well, and would avoid giving the impression that the report had always referenced the need of discussing such issues as immunity from US jurisdiction. And only then, in connection to the point above, comments by other countries in support for the further jurisdiction-related discussions, in particular immunities, should be specifically referenced. But this point here is not to be confused with the previous one. Hope this helps. Best, Thiago De: Ws2-jurisdiction [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org] Em nome de Greg Shatan Enviada em: terça-feira, 27 de fevereiro de 2018 03:17 Para: ws2-jurisdiction Assunto: [Ws2-jurisdiction] FINAL DRAFT REVISED REPORT OF JURISDICTION SUBGROUP All, The final draft of the revised Jurisdiction Subgroup report is attached for your review. The Google doc version is at MailScanner has detected definite fraud in the website at "docs.google.com". Do not trust this website: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1rdMJyvZdyN9TApT6gx_3NwpdvIL7YKHEUD7tNfLf6hU/edit?usp=sharing<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1rdMJyvZdyN9TApT6gx_3NwpdvIL7YKHEUD7tNfLf6hU/edit?usp=sharing> PLEASE SPECIFICALLY REVIEW THE SIX "NOTES" IN THE MARGINAL COMMENTS. THESE SHOW WHERE POSSIBLE CHANGES TO THE REPORT HAVE BEEN DISCUSSED AND TENTATIVELY RESOLVED. PLEASE RESPOND WITH YOUR POSITION ON THESE SIX NOTES, PARTICULARLY IF YOU OBJECT TO THE RESOLUTION IN THE BODY OF THE REPORT. (Expressions of support are welcome, but not necessary. Lack of response will be interpreted as "Can live with it.") THIS IS PARTICULARLY IMPORTANT IF YOU WILL NOT BE ON WEDNESDAY'S CALL, SO YOUR VOICE CAN BE HEARD. The Report must be submitted to the Plenary no later than Friday, March 2 (two days after our call). Thank you for your review. Best regards, Greg -- Esta mensagem foi verificada pelas ferramentas de detecção de ataques do Ministério e nenhuma ameaça cibernética foi encontrada. Não obstante, recomenda-se cautela, especialmente se solicitar dados pessoais e senhas ou se contiver anexos.
Thiago, Thank for clarifying your suggestions. In response, your main point, I have now added a new sentence to the Google doc on page 11, after “A transcript of these discussions is included as Annex [F] to this Report.” The new sentence reads: “As a result of these discussions, the section “Further Discussions of Jurisdiction-Related Concerns” was added to the draft Report, suggesting a path forward for these concerns beyond the CCWG-Accountability through a further other multistakeholder process.” This new sentence is in “suggest” mode and should be reviewed by you and other Subgroup participants. I will also circulate Word and PDF versions as soon as I can, but I am stepping out for a meeting and will be gone for a couple of hours. On the other point, it is general practice in the CCWG not to mention specific comments in the body of the report. Some of the reasons for his were discussed 3 meetings ago with Co-Chair Thomas Rickert. Nonetheless, if you want to suggest some specific text for the Subgroup to consider, we can see if there is significant support for such an addition. If so, I believe it would be appropriate, for accuracy and balance, to mention all comments that took a view on this, regardless of which view they took. Best regards, Greg On Tue, Feb 27, 2018 at 8:20 AM Thiago Braz Jardim Oliveira < thiago.jardim@itamaraty.gov.br> wrote:
Dear Greg,
Thank you for this.
Specifically on the comments and sugestions of changes featuring on page 11, I think you may have misread my suggestion of adding some text in there, which would be, as agreed during the call, part of the “SUMMARY OF WORK OF SUBGROUP BEFORE, DURING AND AFTER COMMENT PERIOD”.
My main point was that we should include on page 11, as part of the summary of what happened following in particular the objection to the report by some of the participants, that it was subsequently recognised in the report, prior to its being submitted to public comments, that “further discussions of jurisdiction-related concerns” (p. 26 of the report) are needed, in particular on the subject of immunities. This would describe what happened, in terms of process as well, and would avoid giving the impression that the report had always referenced the need of discussing such issues as immunity from US jurisdiction.
And only then, in connection to the point above, comments by other countries in support for the further jurisdiction-related discussions, in particular immunities, should be specifically referenced. But this point here is not to be confused with the previous one. Hope this helps.
Best,
Thiago
*De:* Ws2-jurisdiction [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org] *Em nome de *Greg Shatan *Enviada em:* terça-feira, 27 de fevereiro de 2018 03:17 *Para:* ws2-jurisdiction *Assunto:* [Ws2-jurisdiction] FINAL DRAFT REVISED REPORT OF JURISDICTION SUBGROUP
All,
The final draft of the revised Jurisdiction Subgroup report is attached for your review. The Google doc version is at *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/document/d/1rdMJyvZdyN9TApT6gx_3NwpdvIL7YKHEUD7tNfLf... <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1rdMJyvZdyN9TApT6gx_3NwpdvIL7YKHEUD7tNfLf...>
*PLEASE SPECIFICALLY REVIEW THE SIX "NOTES" IN THE MARGINAL COMMENTS. THESE SHOW WHERE POSSIBLE CHANGES TO THE REPORT HAVE BEEN DISCUSSED AND TENTATIVELY RESOLVED.*
*PLEASE RESPOND WITH YOUR POSITION ON THESE SIX NOTES, PARTICULARLY IF YOU OBJECT TO THE RESOLUTION IN THE BODY OF THE REPORT. (Expressions of support are welcome, but not necessary. Lack of response will be interpreted as "Can live with it.")*
*THIS IS PARTICULARLY IMPORTANT IF YOU WILL NOT BE ON WEDNESDAY'S CALL, SO YOUR VOICE CAN BE HEARD. The Report must be submitted to the Plenary no later than Friday, March 2 (two days after our call).*
Thank you for your review.
Best regards,
Greg
--
*Esta mensagem foi verificada pelas ferramentas de detecção de ataques do Ministério e nenhuma ameaça cibernética foi encontrada. Não obstante, recomenda-se cautela, especialmente se solicitar dados pessoais e senhas ou se contiver anexos.*
Dear Greg, Thank you for the document. As to NOTE 2, I support that the Subgroup recommends that if a menu approach is implemented then it should be up to the Registry to choose from the menu. I have noted that there already has been expressed very broad support on two previous calls on this amendment. I would like to be assured that if consensus finally is established, the changes shown in the attached document - Commented [5], Commented [6] and Commented [7] – will be included before the Report is submitted to the Plenary. Best, Finn Fra: Ws2-jurisdiction [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org] På vegne af Greg Shatan Sendt: 27. februar 2018 07:17 Til: ws2-jurisdiction Emne: [Ws2-jurisdiction] FINAL DRAFT REVISED REPORT OF JURISDICTION SUBGROUP All, The final draft of the revised Jurisdiction Subgroup report is attached for your review. The Google doc version is at https://docs.google.com/document/d/1rdMJyvZdyN9TApT6gx_3NwpdvIL7YKHEUD7tNfLf... PLEASE SPECIFICALLY REVIEW THE SIX "NOTES" IN THE MARGINAL COMMENTS. THESE SHOW WHERE POSSIBLE CHANGES TO THE REPORT HAVE BEEN DISCUSSED AND TENTATIVELY RESOLVED. PLEASE RESPOND WITH YOUR POSITION ON THESE SIX NOTES, PARTICULARLY IF YOU OBJECT TO THE RESOLUTION IN THE BODY OF THE REPORT. (Expressions of support are welcome, but not necessary. Lack of response will be interpreted as "Can live with it.") THIS IS PARTICULARLY IMPORTANT IF YOU WILL NOT BE ON WEDNESDAY'S CALL, SO YOUR VOICE CAN BE HEARD. The Report must be submitted to the Plenary no later than Friday, March 2 (two days after our call). Thank you for your review. Best regards, Greg
Finn, I have now reviewed the transcripts of the last 3 meetings and you are correct. I will revise this point so it changes the recommendation to contracting party’s choice. Greg On Tue, Feb 27, 2018 at 3:21 PM Finn Petersen <FinPet@erst.dk> wrote:
Dear Greg,
Thank you for the document.
As to NOTE 2, I support that the Subgroup recommends that if a menu approach is implemented then it should be up to the Registry to choose from the menu. I have noted that there already has been expressed very broad support on two previous calls on this amendment.
I would like to be assured that if consensus finally is established, the changes shown in the attached document - Commented [5], Commented [6] and Commented [7] – will be included before the Report is submitted to the Plenary.
Best,
Finn
*Fra:* Ws2-jurisdiction [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org] *På vegne af *Greg Shatan *Sendt:* 27. februar 2018 07:17 *Til:* ws2-jurisdiction *Emne:* [Ws2-jurisdiction] FINAL DRAFT REVISED REPORT OF JURISDICTION SUBGROUP
All,
The final draft of the revised Jurisdiction Subgroup report is attached for your review. The Google doc version is at https://docs.google.com/document/d/1rdMJyvZdyN9TApT6gx_3NwpdvIL7YKHEUD7tNfLf...
*PLEASE SPECIFICALLY REVIEW THE SIX "NOTES" IN THE MARGINAL COMMENTS. THESE SHOW WHERE POSSIBLE CHANGES TO THE REPORT HAVE BEEN DISCUSSED AND TENTATIVELY RESOLVED.*
*PLEASE RESPOND WITH YOUR POSITION ON THESE SIX NOTES, PARTICULARLY IF YOU OBJECT TO THE RESOLUTION IN THE BODY OF THE REPORT. (Expressions of support are welcome, but not necessary. Lack of response will be interpreted as "Can live with it.")*
*THIS IS PARTICULARLY IMPORTANT IF YOU WILL NOT BE ON WEDNESDAY'S CALL, SO YOUR VOICE CAN BE HEARD. The Report must be submitted to the Plenary no later than Friday, March 2 (two days after our call).*
Thank you for your review.
Best regards,
Greg
Per Greg’s request, regarding the 6 Notes in the final draft doc: I enthusiastically support Notes 1-3. Note 4: I do not understand the justification to single-out one comment (that of France) among so many that we received and considered. Pending an explanation of that justification, I would not support a note that calls attention to just one comment. Note 5: Support Note 6: Support (but please ensure that it reflects the edit to one Stress Test that was offered on our last call. I was driving and did not write it down!) Thanks, Steve From: Ws2-jurisdiction <ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> Date: Tuesday, February 27, 2018 at 1:18 AM To: ws2-jurisdiction <ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> Subject: [Ws2-jurisdiction] FINAL DRAFT REVISED REPORT OF JURISDICTION SUBGROUP All, The final draft of the revised Jurisdiction Subgroup report is attached for your review. The Google doc version is at https://docs.google.com/document/d/1rdMJyvZdyN9TApT6gx_3NwpdvIL7YKHEUD7tNfLf... PLEASE SPECIFICALLY REVIEW THE SIX "NOTES" IN THE MARGINAL COMMENTS. THESE SHOW WHERE POSSIBLE CHANGES TO THE REPORT HAVE BEEN DISCUSSED AND TENTATIVELY RESOLVED. PLEASE RESPOND WITH YOUR POSITION ON THESE SIX NOTES, PARTICULARLY IF YOU OBJECT TO THE RESOLUTION IN THE BODY OF THE REPORT. (Expressions of support are welcome, but not necessary. Lack of response will be interpreted as "Can live with it.") THIS IS PARTICULARLY IMPORTANT IF YOU WILL NOT BE ON WEDNESDAY'S CALL, SO YOUR VOICE CAN BE HEARD. The Report must be submitted to the Plenary no later than Friday, March 2 (two days after our call). Thank you for your review. Best regards, Greg
Dear Steve, Dear Greg, On Note 4, it is a fair point, and I do not wish to push it further. My main point was as I clarified, to add text reflecting the subsequent addition to the report of the “further discussions on jurisdiction-related concerns”, and not so much concerned with singling out any of the comments received. So, again, what appears as Note 4 is distinct and independent from what appears as Note 4.1. Yet I would only suggest dropping point 4.1 if others believe that the report, as slightly revised in reaction to the public comments received, did respond at least in some fashion to the comments that joined their voices to Brazil’s dissent in asking for further discussions to take place, notably on immunity. This not being the case, I do believe – as Greg suggested – it would be fair to also explicitly give similar satisfaction to the contrary voices, which however, as I clarified in our previous call, are not really contrary to Brazil’s dissent, which fact should in my view be made explicit in the report as part of the subgroup’s response to the comments received. Thank you. Best, Thiago De: Ws2-jurisdiction [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org] Em nome de Steve DelBianco Enviada em: terça-feira, 27 de fevereiro de 2018 18:36 Para: Greg Shatan; ws2-jurisdiction Assunto: Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] FINAL DRAFT REVISED REPORT OF JURISDICTION SUBGROUP Per Greg’s request, regarding the 6 Notes in the final draft doc: I enthusiastically support Notes 1-3. Note 4: I do not understand the justification to single-out one comment (that of France) among so many that we received and considered. Pending an explanation of that justification, I would not support a note that calls attention to just one comment. Note 5: Support Note 6: Support (but please ensure that it reflects the edit to one Stress Test that was offered on our last call. I was driving and did not write it down!) Thanks, Steve From: Ws2-jurisdiction <ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org<mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> Date: Tuesday, February 27, 2018 at 1:18 AM To: ws2-jurisdiction <ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org<mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org>> Subject: [Ws2-jurisdiction] FINAL DRAFT REVISED REPORT OF JURISDICTION SUBGROUP All, The final draft of the revised Jurisdiction Subgroup report is attached for your review. The Google doc version is at MailScanner has detected definite fraud in the website at "docs.google.com". Do not trust this website: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1rdMJyvZdyN9TApT6gx_3NwpdvIL7YKHEUD7tNfLf6hU/edit?usp=sharing<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1rdMJyvZdyN9TApT6gx_3NwpdvIL7YKHEUD7tNfLf6hU/edit?usp=sharing> PLEASE SPECIFICALLY REVIEW THE SIX "NOTES" IN THE MARGINAL COMMENTS. THESE SHOW WHERE POSSIBLE CHANGES TO THE REPORT HAVE BEEN DISCUSSED AND TENTATIVELY RESOLVED. PLEASE RESPOND WITH YOUR POSITION ON THESE SIX NOTES, PARTICULARLY IF YOU OBJECT TO THE RESOLUTION IN THE BODY OF THE REPORT. (Expressions of support are welcome, but not necessary. Lack of response will be interpreted as "Can live with it.") THIS IS PARTICULARLY IMPORTANT IF YOU WILL NOT BE ON WEDNESDAY'S CALL, SO YOUR VOICE CAN BE HEARD. The Report must be submitted to the Plenary no later than Friday, March 2 (two days after our call). Thank you for your review. Best regards, Greg
participants (4)
-
Finn Petersen -
Greg Shatan -
Steve DelBianco -
Thiago Braz Jardim Oliveira