Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Updated "Applicable Law and Choice of Venue Provisions" Recommendation
Dear Greg, I feel my suggestions speak for themselves and I'm happy to explain to members of the group who might have concerns - fact is that no one had voiced such in more than a week and that it is only you interrogating on them. But it is not your role to drive the debate in one specific direction when it is open and ongoing. and again, the facts are that there was an open document, where all Subgroup members could suggest edits. Raphaël and I did so. I saw Raphaëls text and he saw mine – and did not object to the way I saw things. Nobody else did comment or object to my suggested wording. Moreover, the “menu” approach had been supported on list, with different nuances, on list by various other subgroup participants. Fact is that immediately before circulating the doc you made your personal changes, taking a specific view not supported by anyone else in the document comments, and after making those changes you immediately sent out the text with your revised text – hence not giving any chance to react to your “reverting” or “putting back”. These actions would be considered as profoundly contrary to a Rapporteur neutrality in many other fore, where the Rapporteur has to remain neutral, not take sides and help bridge differences. best Jorge ________________________________ Von: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> Datum: 27. September 2017 um 19:19:56 MESZ An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> Cc: ws2-jurisdiction <ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> Betreff: Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Updated "Applicable Law and Choice of Venue Provisions" Recommendation Jorge, Once again, you puzzle me. I believe that I am being both neutral and transparent (everything is happening on the list and in the documents, so I have no idea what is not "transparent"). Clearly, your draft changes were merely suggestions, and my discussion of it was in that context. I'm sorry that was not apparent to you. Nonetheless, I'm sure it would help the Subgroup understand your suggestions if you would explain how your suggested text maintains the option of a fixed choice of California/US law. The reasons that is not clear are in my prior email. I'm hoping that it is not difficult to answer, and will aid the group in considering your suggestions. Just to be clear, based on my understanding and experience with Chairs/rapporteurs, it is very much part of the role to ask follow-up questions to draw out details, eliminate ambiguity, and resolve potential areas of concern. I'm sorry you believe that makes no sense. Hopefully you will reconsider. In any event, I would appreciate your assisting the Subgroup by clarifying the ambiguities I have asked about. Detailed discussions of process while not discussing substance will not get the Subgroup where it needs to go. Best regards, Greg On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 12:51 PM, <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>> wrote: Dear Greg, I feel that this questioning and interrogatory modus regarding my suggestions in an open and ongoing doc makes no sense. You said I had "eliminated" something - that is not only absurd (I was suggesting) but inaccurate (I suggested that a free standing option is a possible outcome). Please just refrain to making such interventions in an open and ongoing process. That is not the role of the Rapporteur. It is not neutral and lacks transparency. best Jorge ________________________________ Von: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> Datum: 27. September 2017 um 18:38:03 MESZ An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>> Cc: ws2-jurisdiction <ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org<mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org>> Betreff: Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Updated "Applicable Law and Choice of Venue Provisions" Recommendation Jorge, Perhaps I did not understand one thing about your draft. You say that the "California" option is not foreclosed, and that it is a potential outcome of the Menu approach. As I understand it, the Menu approach allows each registry to choose (or perhaps, to negotiate for) one out of a defined list of jurisdictions (e.g., one from each ICANN Geographic Region). The "California" approach fixes California/US law as the sole choice of law for all registry agreements. I don't see how the California approach can be a possible outcome of the Menu approach. Do you mean that it is technically possible that every registry will choose California law from the Menu as their individual outcome? Even if that is the outcome (and the chances of that are vanishingly small), that is still an outcome and not the "California" option, which is distinguished by a fixed choice of law. Please help me and the Subgroup understand better. Thank you, Greg On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 11:47 AM, <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>> wrote: Dear Greg, I feel we have different views of what the rapporteur role is. The facts are that there was an open document, where all Subgroup members could suggest edits. Raphaël and I did so. I saw Raphaëls text and he saw mine – and did not object to the way I saw things. Nobody else did comment or object to my suggested wording. Moreover, the “menu” approach had been supported on list, with different nuances, on list by various other subgroup participants. You made changes, taking a specific view not supported by anyone else in the document comments, and after making those changes you immediately sent out the text with your revised text – hence not giving any chance to react to your “reverting” or “putting back”. I find that irregular and improper to the role of the Rapporteur. And it is quite puzzling that you pretend that with my “suggestions” I was closing any debate – I was just proposing wording, which as I said was not objected nor commented by anyone during more than one week. Btw: I have never taken out the Californian option – I presented it as a potential outcome of the overall Menu approach. See attached the word document I saved in my PC after making my suggestions to the Google Doc on September 19. Best Jorge Von: Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com><mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>>] Gesendet: Mittwoch, 27. September 2017 17:36 An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>> Cc: ws2-jurisdiction <ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org<mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org><mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org<mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org>>> Betreff: Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Updated "Applicable Law and Choice of Venue Provisions" Recommendation Jorge, These changes were made in my role as rapporteur. A key aspect of the rapporteur role is helping the group find outcomes the group broadly supports. Part of this is avoiding a push to define "common ground" prematurely. In my view as rapporteur, the group is not yet at the point where a "common ground" can be declared, and other options eliminated. You will see that today's agenda includes a discussion of the various options. I am as eager as you are to find common ground, and I thank you for offering your assistance in identifying what you believe to be common ground. However, I believe that it's premature to identify a result at this time. Thus, I edited the text to keep our options open. (I don't believe it's accurate to say I "reverted" the text, since all your suggestions are still in the document, and only a few changes were made by me, to reflect where we stand in our process.) This in no way prevents the group from considering whether the "Menu" option is one where the Subgroup can find common ground. It merely reflects that we have not already done so. I'm a little puzzled also by your statement that I am "intervening in an open discussion within the group taking very specific positions, instead of letting the debate go forward and helping it reaching consensus when needed." The changes I made were to back the document away from the very specific positions you inserted, in order to keep the debate and discussion open. I'm sorry that was not clear to you. In the end, this text needs to be revised to identify a result and a recommendation, unless there is a divergence of opinion (and thus no common ground, although this itself would be a "result"). We can also discuss whether to identify the options we did not adopt and the reasons for doing so, or to take your approach and eliminate them from the document (as you did with the "California" option). I hope we can move through this rapidly, while avoiding hasty conclusions, and arrive at a document that reflects a finding of common ground in the group. I hope this clarifies matters. Best regards, Greg On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 1:49 AM, <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>> wrote: Dear Greg, In the pdf this is not clear. Are these changes made in your capacity as rapporteur? or are they personal contributions? I guess they are the latter. In such case this should be made clear in order to avoid any misunderstandings. I note for the record that I find troublesome that (without making that clear) you are once again intervening in an open discussion within the group taking very specific positions, instead of letting the debate go forward and helping it reaching consensus when needed. I cannot speak for Raphaêl of course, bit I wonder why you "revert" to his initial text, which I had suggested to amend aiming at a "common ground" I saw emerging, when Raphaël himself had not done so or had not objected to my suggestions. Hence, I would like to see the document distributed without your changes or if you insist to circulate the version you have changed that you clearly identify your edits as your personal opinion. best Jorge ________________________________ Von: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com><mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>>> Datum: 27. September 2017 um 07:40:41 MESZ An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>> Cc: ws2-jurisdiction <ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org<mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org><mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org<mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org>>> Betreff: Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Updated "Applicable Law and Choice of Venue Provisions" Recommendation Jorge, Yes. This is reflected in the Google Doc, and if you mouse over the changes in Word. Greg On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 1:39 AM, <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>>> wrote: Dear Greg, The changes in "red ink" are from you? Thanks for clarifying. regards Jorge ________________________________ Von: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com><mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>><mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com><mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>>>> Datum: 27. September 2017 um 07:33:38 MESZ An: ws2-jurisdiction <ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org<mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org><mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org<mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org>><mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org<mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org><mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org<mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org>>>> Betreff: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Updated "Applicable Law and Choice of Venue Provisions" Recommendation All, Attached is an updated version of this recommendation in Word and PDF formats, found athttps://docs.google.com/document/d/1xAyla8FTaL7jZ0D2rYtAzQUr3gEnirTKiAG-kqD0... (please make all changes in SUGGEST mode). Please review and be prepared to discuss. Thank you. Greg
Jorge, Let's stop talking about process. It's only getting repetitive. I will say I do not believe I am driving the debate in any specific direction; frankly, I do not even see a basis for saying that. I have noted that there has been some open and fruitful discussion of the Menu approach on the list. As I've indicated several times now, it is my view as rapporteur that the group has not settled on that as "common ground." We've clearly had a lack of attention to this document, due to continuing focus on the OFAC Recommendations. As such, it is very much a work in progress and no outcomes are foreclosed. It is time now to determine where the common ground lies, if we have one. Honestly, I will be happy with any result. Finally, if you won't answer my questions on the substance of your suggestions as rapporteur, consider them re-asked in my personal role. I look forward to your reply. Best regards, Greg On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 1:28 PM, <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> wrote:
Dear Greg,
I feel my suggestions speak for themselves and I'm happy to explain to members of the group who might have concerns - fact is that no one had voiced such in more than a week and that it is only you interrogating on them. But it is not your role to drive the debate in one specific direction when it is open and ongoing.
and again, the facts are that there was an open document, where all Subgroup members could suggest edits. Raphaël and I did so. I saw Raphaëls text and he saw mine – and did not object to the way I saw things. Nobody else did comment or object to my suggested wording.
Moreover, the “menu” approach had been supported on list, with different nuances, on list by various other subgroup participants.
Fact is that immediately before circulating the doc you made your personal changes, taking a specific view not supported by anyone else in the document comments, and after making those changes you immediately sent out the text with your revised text – hence not giving any chance to react to your “reverting” or “putting back”.
These actions would be considered as profoundly contrary to a Rapporteur neutrality in many other fore, where the Rapporteur has to remain neutral, not take sides and help bridge differences.
best
Jorge
________________________________
Von: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> Datum: 27. September 2017 um 19:19:56 MESZ An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> Cc: ws2-jurisdiction <ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> Betreff: Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Updated "Applicable Law and Choice of Venue Provisions" Recommendation
Jorge,
Once again, you puzzle me. I believe that I am being both neutral and transparent (everything is happening on the list and in the documents, so I have no idea what is not "transparent"). Clearly, your draft changes were merely suggestions, and my discussion of it was in that context. I'm sorry that was not apparent to you.
Nonetheless, I'm sure it would help the Subgroup understand your suggestions if you would explain how your suggested text maintains the option of a fixed choice of California/US law. The reasons that is not clear are in my prior email. I'm hoping that it is not difficult to answer, and will aid the group in considering your suggestions.
Just to be clear, based on my understanding and experience with Chairs/rapporteurs, it is very much part of the role to ask follow-up questions to draw out details, eliminate ambiguity, and resolve potential areas of concern. I'm sorry you believe that makes no sense. Hopefully you will reconsider.
In any event, I would appreciate your assisting the Subgroup by clarifying the ambiguities I have asked about. Detailed discussions of process while not discussing substance will not get the Subgroup where it needs to go.
Best regards,
Greg
On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 12:51 PM, <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto: Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>> wrote: Dear Greg,
I feel that this questioning and interrogatory modus regarding my suggestions in an open and ongoing doc makes no sense.
You said I had "eliminated" something - that is not only absurd (I was suggesting) but inaccurate (I suggested that a free standing option is a possible outcome).
Please just refrain to making such interventions in an open and ongoing process. That is not the role of the Rapporteur. It is not neutral and lacks transparency.
best
Jorge
________________________________
Von: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> Datum: 27. September 2017 um 18:38:03 MESZ An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto: Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>> Cc: ws2-jurisdiction <ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org<mailto: ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org>> Betreff: Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Updated "Applicable Law and Choice of Venue Provisions" Recommendation
Jorge,
Perhaps I did not understand one thing about your draft. You say that the "California" option is not foreclosed, and that it is a potential outcome of the Menu approach.
As I understand it, the Menu approach allows each registry to choose (or perhaps, to negotiate for) one out of a defined list of jurisdictions (e.g., one from each ICANN Geographic Region).
The "California" approach fixes California/US law as the sole choice of law for all registry agreements.
I don't see how the California approach can be a possible outcome of the Menu approach. Do you mean that it is technically possible that every registry will choose California law from the Menu as their individual outcome? Even if that is the outcome (and the chances of that are vanishingly small), that is still an outcome and not the "California" option, which is distinguished by a fixed choice of law.
Please help me and the Subgroup understand better.
Thank you,
Greg
On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 11:47 AM, <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto: Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto: Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>> wrote: Dear Greg,
I feel we have different views of what the rapporteur role is. The facts are that there was an open document, where all Subgroup members could suggest edits. Raphaël and I did so. I saw Raphaëls text and he saw mine – and did not object to the way I saw things. Nobody else did comment or object to my suggested wording. Moreover, the “menu” approach had been supported on list, with different nuances, on list by various other subgroup participants.
You made changes, taking a specific view not supported by anyone else in the document comments, and after making those changes you immediately sent out the text with your revised text – hence not giving any chance to react to your “reverting” or “putting back”.
I find that irregular and improper to the role of the Rapporteur. And it is quite puzzling that you pretend that with my “suggestions” I was closing any debate – I was just proposing wording, which as I said was not objected nor commented by anyone during more than one week.
Btw: I have never taken out the Californian option – I presented it as a potential outcome of the overall Menu approach. See attached the word document I saved in my PC after making my suggestions to the Google Doc on September 19.
Best
Jorge
Von: Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@ gmail.com><mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com
] Gesendet: Mittwoch, 27. September 2017 17:36
An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto: Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto: Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>> Cc: ws2-jurisdiction <ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org<mailto: ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org><mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org<mailto:ws2- jurisdiction@icann.org>>> Betreff: Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Updated "Applicable Law and Choice of Venue Provisions" Recommendation
Jorge,
These changes were made in my role as rapporteur. A key aspect of the rapporteur role is helping the group find outcomes the group broadly supports. Part of this is avoiding a push to define "common ground" prematurely. In my view as rapporteur, the group is not yet at the point where a "common ground" can be declared, and other options eliminated. You will see that today's agenda includes a discussion of the various options.
I am as eager as you are to find common ground, and I thank you for offering your assistance in identifying what you believe to be common ground. However, I believe that it's premature to identify a result at this time. Thus, I edited the text to keep our options open. (I don't believe it's accurate to say I "reverted" the text, since all your suggestions are still in the document, and only a few changes were made by me, to reflect where we stand in our process.) This in no way prevents the group from considering whether the "Menu" option is one where the Subgroup can find common ground. It merely reflects that we have not already done so.
I'm a little puzzled also by your statement that I am "intervening in an open discussion within the group taking very specific positions, instead of letting the debate go forward and helping it reaching consensus when needed." The changes I made were to back the document away from the very specific positions you inserted, in order to keep the debate and discussion open. I'm sorry that was not clear to you.
In the end, this text needs to be revised to identify a result and a recommendation, unless there is a divergence of opinion (and thus no common ground, although this itself would be a "result"). We can also discuss whether to identify the options we did not adopt and the reasons for doing so, or to take your approach and eliminate them from the document (as you did with the "California" option). I hope we can move through this rapidly, while avoiding hasty conclusions, and arrive at a document that reflects a finding of common ground in the group.
I hope this clarifies matters.
Best regards,
Greg
On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 1:49 AM, <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto: Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto: Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>> wrote: Dear Greg,
In the pdf this is not clear.
Are these changes made in your capacity as rapporteur? or are they personal contributions?
I guess they are the latter. In such case this should be made clear in order to avoid any misunderstandings.
I note for the record that I find troublesome that (without making that clear) you are once again intervening in an open discussion within the group taking very specific positions, instead of letting the debate go forward and helping it reaching consensus when needed.
I cannot speak for Raphaêl of course, bit I wonder why you "revert" to his initial text, which I had suggested to amend aiming at a "common ground" I saw emerging, when Raphaël himself had not done so or had not objected to my suggestions.
Hence, I would like to see the document distributed without your changes or if you insist to circulate the version you have changed that you clearly identify your edits as your personal opinion.
best
Jorge
________________________________
Von: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com
<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>>> Datum: 27. September 2017 um 07:40:41 MESZ An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto: Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto: Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>> Cc: ws2-jurisdiction <ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org<mailto: ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org><mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org<mailto:ws2- jurisdiction@icann.org>>> Betreff: Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Updated "Applicable Law and Choice of Venue Provisions" Recommendation
Jorge,
Yes. This is reflected in the Google Doc, and if you mouse over the changes in Word.
Greg
On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 1:39 AM, <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto: Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto: Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto: Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:J orge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>>> wrote: Dear Greg,
The changes in "red ink" are from you?
Thanks for clarifying.
regards
Jorge
________________________________
Von: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com
<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>><mailto: gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com><mailto:gregshat anipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>>>> Datum: 27. September 2017 um 07:33:38 MESZ An: ws2-jurisdiction <ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org<mailto: ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org><mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org<mailto:ws2- jurisdiction@icann.org>><mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org<mailto: ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org><mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org<mailto: ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org>>>> Betreff: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Updated "Applicable Law and Choice of Venue Provisions" Recommendation
All,
Attached is an updated version of this recommendation in Word and PDF formats, found athttps://docs.google.com/document/d/ 1xAyla8FTaL7jZ0D2rYtAzQUr3gEnirTKiAG-kqD0ZSs/edit?usp=sharing (please make all changes in SUGGEST mode).
Please review and be prepared to discuss.
Thank you.
Greg
Dear Greg, As a matter of fact I have been contributing for months on the substance of this topic. I hope that you refrain in the future from making some last minute edits and/or that if you do it you clarify from the start that you are doing it with your participant hat on – and if you are doing it as Rapporteur you clearly explain your reasons properly. As to the substance, what I proposed in my suggestions of 19 September was a wording that based itself on what IMHO I was seeing as an emerging consensus (I think, Paul, Milton, Beckie and others had supported it), i.e. that according to the principle of effective choice registries and ICANN would start with an overall “menu approach” to applicable law – they would decide (together). Within that overall approach, the three initial options proposed by Raphaël would be possible outcomes – i.e. they would not be mutually exclusive: some registries (probably the “traditional” ones –if I may say so- and those with strong ties with the US) would exercise their option in leaving things as is (=”Californian option”), others would go for the “carve out” (as designated by Raphaël) and, finally, I mentioned that, given this freedom, there could be other possibilities. Hope this helps Jorge Von: Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com] Gesendet: Mittwoch, 27. September 2017 19:41 An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> Cc: ws2-jurisdiction <ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> Betreff: Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Updated "Applicable Law and Choice of Venue Provisions" Recommendation Jorge, Let's stop talking about process. It's only getting repetitive. I will say I do not believe I am driving the debate in any specific direction; frankly, I do not even see a basis for saying that. I have noted that there has been some open and fruitful discussion of the Menu approach on the list. As I've indicated several times now, it is my view as rapporteur that the group has not settled on that as "common ground." We've clearly had a lack of attention to this document, due to continuing focus on the OFAC Recommendations. As such, it is very much a work in progress and no outcomes are foreclosed. It is time now to determine where the common ground lies, if we have one. Honestly, I will be happy with any result. Finally, if you won't answer my questions on the substance of your suggestions as rapporteur, consider them re-asked in my personal role. I look forward to your reply. Best regards, Greg On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 1:28 PM, <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>> wrote: Dear Greg, I feel my suggestions speak for themselves and I'm happy to explain to members of the group who might have concerns - fact is that no one had voiced such in more than a week and that it is only you interrogating on them. But it is not your role to drive the debate in one specific direction when it is open and ongoing. and again, the facts are that there was an open document, where all Subgroup members could suggest edits. Raphaël and I did so. I saw Raphaëls text and he saw mine – and did not object to the way I saw things. Nobody else did comment or object to my suggested wording. Moreover, the “menu” approach had been supported on list, with different nuances, on list by various other subgroup participants. Fact is that immediately before circulating the doc you made your personal changes, taking a specific view not supported by anyone else in the document comments, and after making those changes you immediately sent out the text with your revised text – hence not giving any chance to react to your “reverting” or “putting back”. These actions would be considered as profoundly contrary to a Rapporteur neutrality in many other fore, where the Rapporteur has to remain neutral, not take sides and help bridge differences. best Jorge ________________________________ Von: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> Datum: 27. September 2017 um 19:19:56 MESZ An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>> Cc: ws2-jurisdiction <ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org<mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org>> Betreff: Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Updated "Applicable Law and Choice of Venue Provisions" Recommendation Jorge, Once again, you puzzle me. I believe that I am being both neutral and transparent (everything is happening on the list and in the documents, so I have no idea what is not "transparent"). Clearly, your draft changes were merely suggestions, and my discussion of it was in that context. I'm sorry that was not apparent to you. Nonetheless, I'm sure it would help the Subgroup understand your suggestions if you would explain how your suggested text maintains the option of a fixed choice of California/US law. The reasons that is not clear are in my prior email. I'm hoping that it is not difficult to answer, and will aid the group in considering your suggestions. Just to be clear, based on my understanding and experience with Chairs/rapporteurs, it is very much part of the role to ask follow-up questions to draw out details, eliminate ambiguity, and resolve potential areas of concern. I'm sorry you believe that makes no sense. Hopefully you will reconsider. In any event, I would appreciate your assisting the Subgroup by clarifying the ambiguities I have asked about. Detailed discussions of process while not discussing substance will not get the Subgroup where it needs to go. Best regards, Greg On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 12:51 PM, <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>> wrote: Dear Greg, I feel that this questioning and interrogatory modus regarding my suggestions in an open and ongoing doc makes no sense. You said I had "eliminated" something - that is not only absurd (I was suggesting) but inaccurate (I suggested that a free standing option is a possible outcome). Please just refrain to making such interventions in an open and ongoing process. That is not the role of the Rapporteur. It is not neutral and lacks transparency. best Jorge ________________________________ Von: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com><mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>>> Datum: 27. September 2017 um 18:38:03 MESZ An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>> Cc: ws2-jurisdiction <ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org<mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org><mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org<mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org>>> Betreff: Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Updated "Applicable Law and Choice of Venue Provisions" Recommendation Jorge, Perhaps I did not understand one thing about your draft. You say that the "California" option is not foreclosed, and that it is a potential outcome of the Menu approach. As I understand it, the Menu approach allows each registry to choose (or perhaps, to negotiate for) one out of a defined list of jurisdictions (e.g., one from each ICANN Geographic Region). The "California" approach fixes California/US law as the sole choice of law for all registry agreements. I don't see how the California approach can be a possible outcome of the Menu approach. Do you mean that it is technically possible that every registry will choose California law from the Menu as their individual outcome? Even if that is the outcome (and the chances of that are vanishingly small), that is still an outcome and not the "California" option, which is distinguished by a fixed choice of law. Please help me and the Subgroup understand better. Thank you, Greg On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 11:47 AM, <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>>> wrote: Dear Greg, I feel we have different views of what the rapporteur role is. The facts are that there was an open document, where all Subgroup members could suggest edits. Raphaël and I did so. I saw Raphaëls text and he saw mine – and did not object to the way I saw things. Nobody else did comment or object to my suggested wording. Moreover, the “menu” approach had been supported on list, with different nuances, on list by various other subgroup participants. You made changes, taking a specific view not supported by anyone else in the document comments, and after making those changes you immediately sent out the text with your revised text – hence not giving any chance to react to your “reverting” or “putting back”. I find that irregular and improper to the role of the Rapporteur. And it is quite puzzling that you pretend that with my “suggestions” I was closing any debate – I was just proposing wording, which as I said was not objected nor commented by anyone during more than one week. Btw: I have never taken out the Californian option – I presented it as a potential outcome of the overall Menu approach. See attached the word document I saved in my PC after making my suggestions to the Google Doc on September 19. Best Jorge Von: Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com><mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>><mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com><mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>>>] Gesendet: Mittwoch, 27. September 2017 17:36 An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>>> Cc: ws2-jurisdiction <ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org<mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org><mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org<mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org>><mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org<mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org><mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org<mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org>>>> Betreff: Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Updated "Applicable Law and Choice of Venue Provisions" Recommendation Jorge, These changes were made in my role as rapporteur. A key aspect of the rapporteur role is helping the group find outcomes the group broadly supports. Part of this is avoiding a push to define "common ground" prematurely. In my view as rapporteur, the group is not yet at the point where a "common ground" can be declared, and other options eliminated. You will see that today's agenda includes a discussion of the various options. I am as eager as you are to find common ground, and I thank you for offering your assistance in identifying what you believe to be common ground. However, I believe that it's premature to identify a result at this time. Thus, I edited the text to keep our options open. (I don't believe it's accurate to say I "reverted" the text, since all your suggestions are still in the document, and only a few changes were made by me, to reflect where we stand in our process.) This in no way prevents the group from considering whether the "Menu" option is one where the Subgroup can find common ground. It merely reflects that we have not already done so. I'm a little puzzled also by your statement that I am "intervening in an open discussion within the group taking very specific positions, instead of letting the debate go forward and helping it reaching consensus when needed." The changes I made were to back the document away from the very specific positions you inserted, in order to keep the debate and discussion open. I'm sorry that was not clear to you. In the end, this text needs to be revised to identify a result and a recommendation, unless there is a divergence of opinion (and thus no common ground, although this itself would be a "result"). We can also discuss whether to identify the options we did not adopt and the reasons for doing so, or to take your approach and eliminate them from the document (as you did with the "California" option). I hope we can move through this rapidly, while avoiding hasty conclusions, and arrive at a document that reflects a finding of common ground in the group. I hope this clarifies matters. Best regards, Greg On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 1:49 AM, <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>>> wrote: Dear Greg, In the pdf this is not clear. Are these changes made in your capacity as rapporteur? or are they personal contributions? I guess they are the latter. In such case this should be made clear in order to avoid any misunderstandings. I note for the record that I find troublesome that (without making that clear) you are once again intervening in an open discussion within the group taking very specific positions, instead of letting the debate go forward and helping it reaching consensus when needed. I cannot speak for Raphaêl of course, bit I wonder why you "revert" to his initial text, which I had suggested to amend aiming at a "common ground" I saw emerging, when Raphaël himself had not done so or had not objected to my suggestions. Hence, I would like to see the document distributed without your changes or if you insist to circulate the version you have changed that you clearly identify your edits as your personal opinion. best Jorge ________________________________ Von: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com><mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>><mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com><mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>>>> Datum: 27. September 2017 um 07:40:41 MESZ An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>>> Cc: ws2-jurisdiction <ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org<mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org><mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org<mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org>><mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org<mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org><mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org<mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org>>>> Betreff: Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Updated "Applicable Law and Choice of Venue Provisions" Recommendation Jorge, Yes. This is reflected in the Google Doc, and if you mouse over the changes in Word. Greg On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 1:39 AM, <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>>>> wrote: Dear Greg, The changes in "red ink" are from you? Thanks for clarifying. regards Jorge ________________________________ Von: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com><mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>><mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com><mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>>><mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com><mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>><mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com><mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>>>>> Datum: 27. September 2017 um 07:33:38 MESZ An: ws2-jurisdiction <ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org<mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org><mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org<mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org>><mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org<mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org><mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org<mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org>>><mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org<mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org><mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org<mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org>><mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org<mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org><mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org<mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org>>>>> Betreff: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Updated "Applicable Law and Choice of Venue Provisions" Recommendation All, Attached is an updated version of this recommendation in Word and PDF formats, found athttps://docs.google.com/document/d/1xAyla8FTaL7jZ0D2rYtAzQUr3gEnirTKiAG-kqD0ZSs/edit?usp=sharing<http://docs.google.com/document/d/1xAyla8FTaL7jZ0D2rYtAzQUr3gEnirTKiAG-kqD0ZSs/edit?usp=sharing> (please make all changes in SUGGEST mode). Please review and be prepared to discuss. Thank you. Greg
Jorge, Thank you for your clarifications. I now see better how the various options related to each other in your suggestions, i.e., that there are a multiplicity of outcomes based on a fairly comprehensive and flexible "menu." It may be that others have viewed the "Menu" as shorter, e.g., choose from one of the following jurisdictions as the governing law for the entire agreement. But the Subgroup can work that out on the call. I did not mean to imply that you have not been talking about substance during the work of the Subgroup; indeed, you have been of our most thoughtful and substantive participants. I apologize if this was misunderstood, or if the focus on the immediate discussion obscured the value of your overall contributions. My edits were merely intended to keep the discussion option; I'm sorry if they appeared to be otherwise. In any event, I look forward to a thoughtful and fruitful discussion of this Recommendation. Thank you for your continuing contributions to the work of the group. Best regards, Greg On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 1:58 PM, <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> wrote:
Dear Greg,
As a matter of fact I have been contributing for months on the substance of this topic. I hope that you refrain in the future from making some last minute edits and/or that if you do it you clarify from the start that you are doing it with your participant hat on – and if you are doing it as Rapporteur you clearly explain your reasons properly.
As to the substance, what I proposed in my suggestions of 19 September was a wording that based itself on what IMHO I was seeing as an emerging consensus (I think, Paul, Milton, Beckie and others had supported it), i.e. that according to the principle of effective choice registries and ICANN would start with an overall “menu approach” to applicable law – they would decide (together).
Within that overall approach, the three initial options proposed by Raphaël would be possible outcomes – i.e. they would not be mutually exclusive: some registries (probably the “traditional” ones –if I may say so- and those with strong ties with the US) would exercise their option in leaving things as is (=”Californian option”), others would go for the “carve out” (as designated by Raphaël) and, finally, I mentioned that, given this freedom, there could be other possibilities.
Hope this helps
Jorge
*Von:* Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com] *Gesendet:* Mittwoch, 27. September 2017 19:41
*An:* Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> *Cc:* ws2-jurisdiction <ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> *Betreff:* Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Updated "Applicable Law and Choice of Venue Provisions" Recommendation
Jorge,
Let's stop talking about process. It's only getting repetitive. I will say I do not believe I am driving the debate in any specific direction; frankly, I do not even see a basis for saying that.
I have noted that there has been some open and fruitful discussion of the Menu approach on the list. As I've indicated several times now, it is my view as rapporteur that the group has not settled on that as "common ground."
We've clearly had a lack of attention to this document, due to continuing focus on the OFAC Recommendations. As such, it is very much a work in progress and no outcomes are foreclosed.
It is time now to determine where the common ground lies, if we have one. Honestly, I will be happy with any result.
Finally, if you won't answer my questions on the substance of your suggestions as rapporteur, consider them re-asked in my personal role. I look forward to your reply.
Best regards,
Greg
On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 1:28 PM, <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> wrote:
Dear Greg,
I feel my suggestions speak for themselves and I'm happy to explain to members of the group who might have concerns - fact is that no one had voiced such in more than a week and that it is only you interrogating on them. But it is not your role to drive the debate in one specific direction when it is open and ongoing.
and again, the facts are that there was an open document, where all Subgroup members could suggest edits. Raphaël and I did so. I saw Raphaëls text and he saw mine – and did not object to the way I saw things. Nobody else did comment or object to my suggested wording.
Moreover, the “menu” approach had been supported on list, with different nuances, on list by various other subgroup participants.
Fact is that immediately before circulating the doc you made your personal changes, taking a specific view not supported by anyone else in the document comments, and after making those changes you immediately sent out the text with your revised text – hence not giving any chance to react to your “reverting” or “putting back”.
These actions would be considered as profoundly contrary to a Rapporteur neutrality in many other fore, where the Rapporteur has to remain neutral, not take sides and help bridge differences.
best
Jorge
________________________________
Von: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> Datum: 27. September 2017 um 19:19:56 MESZ An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> Cc: ws2-jurisdiction <ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> Betreff: Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Updated "Applicable Law and Choice of Venue Provisions" Recommendation
Jorge,
Once again, you puzzle me. I believe that I am being both neutral and transparent (everything is happening on the list and in the documents, so I have no idea what is not "transparent"). Clearly, your draft changes were merely suggestions, and my discussion of it was in that context. I'm sorry that was not apparent to you.
Nonetheless, I'm sure it would help the Subgroup understand your suggestions if you would explain how your suggested text maintains the option of a fixed choice of California/US law. The reasons that is not clear are in my prior email. I'm hoping that it is not difficult to answer, and will aid the group in considering your suggestions.
Just to be clear, based on my understanding and experience with Chairs/rapporteurs, it is very much part of the role to ask follow-up questions to draw out details, eliminate ambiguity, and resolve potential areas of concern. I'm sorry you believe that makes no sense. Hopefully you will reconsider.
In any event, I would appreciate your assisting the Subgroup by clarifying the ambiguities I have asked about. Detailed discussions of process while not discussing substance will not get the Subgroup where it needs to go.
Best regards,
Greg
On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 12:51 PM, <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto: Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>> wrote: Dear Greg,
I feel that this questioning and interrogatory modus regarding my suggestions in an open and ongoing doc makes no sense.
You said I had "eliminated" something - that is not only absurd (I was suggesting) but inaccurate (I suggested that a free standing option is a possible outcome).
Please just refrain to making such interventions in an open and ongoing process. That is not the role of the Rapporteur. It is not neutral and lacks transparency.
best
Jorge
________________________________
Von: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> Datum: 27. September 2017 um 18:38:03 MESZ An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto: Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>> Cc: ws2-jurisdiction <ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org<mailto: ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org>> Betreff: Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Updated "Applicable Law and Choice of Venue Provisions" Recommendation
Jorge,
Perhaps I did not understand one thing about your draft. You say that the "California" option is not foreclosed, and that it is a potential outcome of the Menu approach.
As I understand it, the Menu approach allows each registry to choose (or perhaps, to negotiate for) one out of a defined list of jurisdictions (e.g., one from each ICANN Geographic Region).
The "California" approach fixes California/US law as the sole choice of law for all registry agreements.
I don't see how the California approach can be a possible outcome of the Menu approach. Do you mean that it is technically possible that every registry will choose California law from the Menu as their individual outcome? Even if that is the outcome (and the chances of that are vanishingly small), that is still an outcome and not the "California" option, which is distinguished by a fixed choice of law.
Please help me and the Subgroup understand better.
Thank you,
Greg
On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 11:47 AM, <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto: Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto: Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>> wrote: Dear Greg,
I feel we have different views of what the rapporteur role is. The facts are that there was an open document, where all Subgroup members could suggest edits. Raphaël and I did so. I saw Raphaëls text and he saw mine – and did not object to the way I saw things. Nobody else did comment or object to my suggested wording. Moreover, the “menu” approach had been supported on list, with different nuances, on list by various other subgroup participants.
You made changes, taking a specific view not supported by anyone else in the document comments, and after making those changes you immediately sent out the text with your revised text – hence not giving any chance to react to your “reverting” or “putting back”.
I find that irregular and improper to the role of the Rapporteur. And it is quite puzzling that you pretend that with my “suggestions” I was closing any debate – I was just proposing wording, which as I said was not objected nor commented by anyone during more than one week.
Btw: I have never taken out the Californian option – I presented it as a potential outcome of the overall Menu approach. See attached the word document I saved in my PC after making my suggestions to the Google Doc on September 19.
Best
Jorge
Von: Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@ gmail.com><mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com
] Gesendet: Mittwoch, 27. September 2017 17:36
An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto: Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto: Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>> Cc: ws2-jurisdiction <ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org<mailto: ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org><mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org<mailto:ws2- jurisdiction@icann.org>>> Betreff: Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Updated "Applicable Law and Choice of Venue Provisions" Recommendation
Jorge,
These changes were made in my role as rapporteur. A key aspect of the rapporteur role is helping the group find outcomes the group broadly supports. Part of this is avoiding a push to define "common ground" prematurely. In my view as rapporteur, the group is not yet at the point where a "common ground" can be declared, and other options eliminated. You will see that today's agenda includes a discussion of the various options.
I am as eager as you are to find common ground, and I thank you for offering your assistance in identifying what you believe to be common ground. However, I believe that it's premature to identify a result at this time. Thus, I edited the text to keep our options open. (I don't believe it's accurate to say I "reverted" the text, since all your suggestions are still in the document, and only a few changes were made by me, to reflect where we stand in our process.) This in no way prevents the group from considering whether the "Menu" option is one where the Subgroup can find common ground. It merely reflects that we have not already done so.
I'm a little puzzled also by your statement that I am "intervening in an open discussion within the group taking very specific positions, instead of letting the debate go forward and helping it reaching consensus when needed." The changes I made were to back the document away from the very specific positions you inserted, in order to keep the debate and discussion open. I'm sorry that was not clear to you.
In the end, this text needs to be revised to identify a result and a recommendation, unless there is a divergence of opinion (and thus no common ground, although this itself would be a "result"). We can also discuss whether to identify the options we did not adopt and the reasons for doing so, or to take your approach and eliminate them from the document (as you did with the "California" option). I hope we can move through this rapidly, while avoiding hasty conclusions, and arrive at a document that reflects a finding of common ground in the group.
I hope this clarifies matters.
Best regards,
Greg
On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 1:49 AM, <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto: Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto: Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>> wrote: Dear Greg,
In the pdf this is not clear.
Are these changes made in your capacity as rapporteur? or are they personal contributions?
I guess they are the latter. In such case this should be made clear in order to avoid any misunderstandings.
I note for the record that I find troublesome that (without making that clear) you are once again intervening in an open discussion within the group taking very specific positions, instead of letting the debate go forward and helping it reaching consensus when needed.
I cannot speak for Raphaêl of course, bit I wonder why you "revert" to his initial text, which I had suggested to amend aiming at a "common ground" I saw emerging, when Raphaël himself had not done so or had not objected to my suggestions.
Hence, I would like to see the document distributed without your changes or if you insist to circulate the version you have changed that you clearly identify your edits as your personal opinion.
best
Jorge
________________________________
Von: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com
<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>>> Datum: 27. September 2017 um 07:40:41 MESZ An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto: Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto: Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>> Cc: ws2-jurisdiction <ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org<mailto: ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org><mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org<mailto:ws2- jurisdiction@icann.org>>> Betreff: Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Updated "Applicable Law and Choice of Venue Provisions" Recommendation
Jorge,
Yes. This is reflected in the Google Doc, and if you mouse over the changes in Word.
Greg
On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 1:39 AM, <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto: Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto: Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto: Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:J orge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>>> wrote: Dear Greg,
The changes in "red ink" are from you?
Thanks for clarifying.
regards
Jorge
________________________________
Von: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com
<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>><mailto: gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com><mailto:gregshat anipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>>>> Datum: 27. September 2017 um 07:33:38 MESZ An: ws2-jurisdiction <ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org<mailto: ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org><mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org<mailto:ws2- jurisdiction@icann.org>><mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org<mailto: ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org><mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org<mailto: ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org>>>> Betreff: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Updated "Applicable Law and Choice of Venue Provisions" Recommendation
All,
Attached is an updated version of this recommendation in Word and PDF formats, found athttps://docs.google.com/document/d/ 1xAyla8FTaL7jZ0D2rYtAzQUr3gEnirTKiAG-kqD0ZSs/edit?usp=sharing (please make all changes in SUGGEST mode).
Please review and be prepared to discuss.
Thank you.
Greg
Dear Greg, I’m very happy that we may lay these unfortunate disagreements to a rest and I look forward to a continued good cooperation with you on these important issues. Kind regards Jorge Ps: only sorry to miss the call – but I’m still travelling back home from a UN meeting… Von: Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com] Gesendet: Mittwoch, 27. September 2017 20:17 An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> Cc: ws2-jurisdiction <ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> Betreff: Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Updated "Applicable Law and Choice of Venue Provisions" Recommendation Jorge, Thank you for your clarifications. I now see better how the various options related to each other in your suggestions, i.e., that there are a multiplicity of outcomes based on a fairly comprehensive and flexible "menu." It may be that others have viewed the "Menu" as shorter, e.g., choose from one of the following jurisdictions as the governing law for the entire agreement. But the Subgroup can work that out on the call. I did not mean to imply that you have not been talking about substance during the work of the Subgroup; indeed, you have been of our most thoughtful and substantive participants. I apologize if this was misunderstood, or if the focus on the immediate discussion obscured the value of your overall contributions. My edits were merely intended to keep the discussion option; I'm sorry if they appeared to be otherwise. In any event, I look forward to a thoughtful and fruitful discussion of this Recommendation. Thank you for your continuing contributions to the work of the group. Best regards, Greg On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 1:58 PM, <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>> wrote: Dear Greg, As a matter of fact I have been contributing for months on the substance of this topic. I hope that you refrain in the future from making some last minute edits and/or that if you do it you clarify from the start that you are doing it with your participant hat on – and if you are doing it as Rapporteur you clearly explain your reasons properly. As to the substance, what I proposed in my suggestions of 19 September was a wording that based itself on what IMHO I was seeing as an emerging consensus (I think, Paul, Milton, Beckie and others had supported it), i.e. that according to the principle of effective choice registries and ICANN would start with an overall “menu approach” to applicable law – they would decide (together). Within that overall approach, the three initial options proposed by Raphaël would be possible outcomes – i.e. they would not be mutually exclusive: some registries (probably the “traditional” ones –if I may say so- and those with strong ties with the US) would exercise their option in leaving things as is (=”Californian option”), others would go for the “carve out” (as designated by Raphaël) and, finally, I mentioned that, given this freedom, there could be other possibilities. Hope this helps Jorge Von: Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>] Gesendet: Mittwoch, 27. September 2017 19:41 An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>> Cc: ws2-jurisdiction <ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org<mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org>> Betreff: Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Updated "Applicable Law and Choice of Venue Provisions" Recommendation Jorge, Let's stop talking about process. It's only getting repetitive. I will say I do not believe I am driving the debate in any specific direction; frankly, I do not even see a basis for saying that. I have noted that there has been some open and fruitful discussion of the Menu approach on the list. As I've indicated several times now, it is my view as rapporteur that the group has not settled on that as "common ground." We've clearly had a lack of attention to this document, due to continuing focus on the OFAC Recommendations. As such, it is very much a work in progress and no outcomes are foreclosed. It is time now to determine where the common ground lies, if we have one. Honestly, I will be happy with any result. Finally, if you won't answer my questions on the substance of your suggestions as rapporteur, consider them re-asked in my personal role. I look forward to your reply. Best regards, Greg On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 1:28 PM, <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>> wrote: Dear Greg, I feel my suggestions speak for themselves and I'm happy to explain to members of the group who might have concerns - fact is that no one had voiced such in more than a week and that it is only you interrogating on them. But it is not your role to drive the debate in one specific direction when it is open and ongoing. and again, the facts are that there was an open document, where all Subgroup members could suggest edits. Raphaël and I did so. I saw Raphaëls text and he saw mine – and did not object to the way I saw things. Nobody else did comment or object to my suggested wording. Moreover, the “menu” approach had been supported on list, with different nuances, on list by various other subgroup participants. Fact is that immediately before circulating the doc you made your personal changes, taking a specific view not supported by anyone else in the document comments, and after making those changes you immediately sent out the text with your revised text – hence not giving any chance to react to your “reverting” or “putting back”. These actions would be considered as profoundly contrary to a Rapporteur neutrality in many other fore, where the Rapporteur has to remain neutral, not take sides and help bridge differences. best Jorge ________________________________ Von: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> Datum: 27. September 2017 um 19:19:56 MESZ An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>> Cc: ws2-jurisdiction <ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org<mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org>> Betreff: Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Updated "Applicable Law and Choice of Venue Provisions" Recommendation Jorge, Once again, you puzzle me. I believe that I am being both neutral and transparent (everything is happening on the list and in the documents, so I have no idea what is not "transparent"). Clearly, your draft changes were merely suggestions, and my discussion of it was in that context. I'm sorry that was not apparent to you. Nonetheless, I'm sure it would help the Subgroup understand your suggestions if you would explain how your suggested text maintains the option of a fixed choice of California/US law. The reasons that is not clear are in my prior email. I'm hoping that it is not difficult to answer, and will aid the group in considering your suggestions. Just to be clear, based on my understanding and experience with Chairs/rapporteurs, it is very much part of the role to ask follow-up questions to draw out details, eliminate ambiguity, and resolve potential areas of concern. I'm sorry you believe that makes no sense. Hopefully you will reconsider. In any event, I would appreciate your assisting the Subgroup by clarifying the ambiguities I have asked about. Detailed discussions of process while not discussing substance will not get the Subgroup where it needs to go. Best regards, Greg On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 12:51 PM, <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>> wrote: Dear Greg, I feel that this questioning and interrogatory modus regarding my suggestions in an open and ongoing doc makes no sense. You said I had "eliminated" something - that is not only absurd (I was suggesting) but inaccurate (I suggested that a free standing option is a possible outcome). Please just refrain to making such interventions in an open and ongoing process. That is not the role of the Rapporteur. It is not neutral and lacks transparency. best Jorge ________________________________ Von: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com><mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>>> Datum: 27. September 2017 um 18:38:03 MESZ An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>> Cc: ws2-jurisdiction <ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org<mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org><mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org<mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org>>> Betreff: Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Updated "Applicable Law and Choice of Venue Provisions" Recommendation Jorge, Perhaps I did not understand one thing about your draft. You say that the "California" option is not foreclosed, and that it is a potential outcome of the Menu approach. As I understand it, the Menu approach allows each registry to choose (or perhaps, to negotiate for) one out of a defined list of jurisdictions (e.g., one from each ICANN Geographic Region). The "California" approach fixes California/US law as the sole choice of law for all registry agreements. I don't see how the California approach can be a possible outcome of the Menu approach. Do you mean that it is technically possible that every registry will choose California law from the Menu as their individual outcome? Even if that is the outcome (and the chances of that are vanishingly small), that is still an outcome and not the "California" option, which is distinguished by a fixed choice of law. Please help me and the Subgroup understand better. Thank you, Greg On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 11:47 AM, <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>>> wrote: Dear Greg, I feel we have different views of what the rapporteur role is. The facts are that there was an open document, where all Subgroup members could suggest edits. Raphaël and I did so. I saw Raphaëls text and he saw mine – and did not object to the way I saw things. Nobody else did comment or object to my suggested wording. Moreover, the “menu” approach had been supported on list, with different nuances, on list by various other subgroup participants. You made changes, taking a specific view not supported by anyone else in the document comments, and after making those changes you immediately sent out the text with your revised text – hence not giving any chance to react to your “reverting” or “putting back”. I find that irregular and improper to the role of the Rapporteur. And it is quite puzzling that you pretend that with my “suggestions” I was closing any debate – I was just proposing wording, which as I said was not objected nor commented by anyone during more than one week. Btw: I have never taken out the Californian option – I presented it as a potential outcome of the overall Menu approach. See attached the word document I saved in my PC after making my suggestions to the Google Doc on September 19. Best Jorge Von: Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com><mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>><mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com><mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>>>] Gesendet: Mittwoch, 27. September 2017 17:36 An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>>> Cc: ws2-jurisdiction <ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org<mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org><mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org<mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org>><mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org<mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org><mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org<mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org>>>> Betreff: Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Updated "Applicable Law and Choice of Venue Provisions" Recommendation Jorge, These changes were made in my role as rapporteur. A key aspect of the rapporteur role is helping the group find outcomes the group broadly supports. Part of this is avoiding a push to define "common ground" prematurely. In my view as rapporteur, the group is not yet at the point where a "common ground" can be declared, and other options eliminated. You will see that today's agenda includes a discussion of the various options. I am as eager as you are to find common ground, and I thank you for offering your assistance in identifying what you believe to be common ground. However, I believe that it's premature to identify a result at this time. Thus, I edited the text to keep our options open. (I don't believe it's accurate to say I "reverted" the text, since all your suggestions are still in the document, and only a few changes were made by me, to reflect where we stand in our process.) This in no way prevents the group from considering whether the "Menu" option is one where the Subgroup can find common ground. It merely reflects that we have not already done so. I'm a little puzzled also by your statement that I am "intervening in an open discussion within the group taking very specific positions, instead of letting the debate go forward and helping it reaching consensus when needed." The changes I made were to back the document away from the very specific positions you inserted, in order to keep the debate and discussion open. I'm sorry that was not clear to you. In the end, this text needs to be revised to identify a result and a recommendation, unless there is a divergence of opinion (and thus no common ground, although this itself would be a "result"). We can also discuss whether to identify the options we did not adopt and the reasons for doing so, or to take your approach and eliminate them from the document (as you did with the "California" option). I hope we can move through this rapidly, while avoiding hasty conclusions, and arrive at a document that reflects a finding of common ground in the group. I hope this clarifies matters. Best regards, Greg On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 1:49 AM, <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>>> wrote: Dear Greg, In the pdf this is not clear. Are these changes made in your capacity as rapporteur? or are they personal contributions? I guess they are the latter. In such case this should be made clear in order to avoid any misunderstandings. I note for the record that I find troublesome that (without making that clear) you are once again intervening in an open discussion within the group taking very specific positions, instead of letting the debate go forward and helping it reaching consensus when needed. I cannot speak for Raphaêl of course, bit I wonder why you "revert" to his initial text, which I had suggested to amend aiming at a "common ground" I saw emerging, when Raphaël himself had not done so or had not objected to my suggestions. Hence, I would like to see the document distributed without your changes or if you insist to circulate the version you have changed that you clearly identify your edits as your personal opinion. best Jorge ________________________________ Von: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com><mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>><mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com><mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>>>> Datum: 27. September 2017 um 07:40:41 MESZ An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>>> Cc: ws2-jurisdiction <ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org<mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org><mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org<mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org>><mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org<mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org><mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org<mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org>>>> Betreff: Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Updated "Applicable Law and Choice of Venue Provisions" Recommendation Jorge, Yes. This is reflected in the Google Doc, and if you mouse over the changes in Word. Greg On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 1:39 AM, <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>>>> wrote: Dear Greg, The changes in "red ink" are from you? Thanks for clarifying. regards Jorge ________________________________ Von: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com><mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>><mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com><mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>>><mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com><mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>><mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com><mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>>>>> Datum: 27. September 2017 um 07:33:38 MESZ An: ws2-jurisdiction <ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org<mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org><mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org<mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org>><mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org<mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org><mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org<mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org>>><mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org<mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org><mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org<mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org>><mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org<mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org><mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org<mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org>>>>> Betreff: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Updated "Applicable Law and Choice of Venue Provisions" Recommendation All, Attached is an updated version of this recommendation in Word and PDF formats, found athttps://docs.google.com/document/d/1xAyla8FTaL7jZ0D2rYtAzQUr3gEnirTKiAG-kqD0ZSs/edit?usp=sharing<http://docs.google.com/document/d/1xAyla8FTaL7jZ0D2rYtAzQUr3gEnirTKiAG-kqD0ZSs/edit?usp=sharing> (please make all changes in SUGGEST mode). Please review and be prepared to discuss. Thank you. Greg
Jorge, Thank you. I share your sentiments completely. I'm sorry that you will miss the call. I will make sure that your suggestions are well considered, even in your absence. Best regards, Greg On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 2:21 PM, <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> wrote:
Dear Greg,
I’m very happy that we may lay these unfortunate disagreements to a rest and I look forward to a continued good cooperation with you on these important issues.
Kind regards
Jorge
Ps: only sorry to miss the call – but I’m still travelling back home from a UN meeting…
*Von:* Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com] *Gesendet:* Mittwoch, 27. September 2017 20:17
*An:* Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> *Cc:* ws2-jurisdiction <ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> *Betreff:* Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Updated "Applicable Law and Choice of Venue Provisions" Recommendation
Jorge,
Thank you for your clarifications. I now see better how the various options related to each other in your suggestions, i.e., that there are a multiplicity of outcomes based on a fairly comprehensive and flexible "menu."
It may be that others have viewed the "Menu" as shorter, e.g., choose from one of the following jurisdictions as the governing law for the entire agreement. But the Subgroup can work that out on the call.
I did not mean to imply that you have not been talking about substance during the work of the Subgroup; indeed, you have been of our most thoughtful and substantive participants. I apologize if this was misunderstood, or if the focus on the immediate discussion obscured the value of your overall contributions. My edits were merely intended to keep the discussion option; I'm sorry if they appeared to be otherwise.
In any event, I look forward to a thoughtful and fruitful discussion of this Recommendation. Thank you for your continuing contributions to the work of the group.
Best regards,
Greg
On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 1:58 PM, <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> wrote:
Dear Greg,
As a matter of fact I have been contributing for months on the substance of this topic. I hope that you refrain in the future from making some last minute edits and/or that if you do it you clarify from the start that you are doing it with your participant hat on – and if you are doing it as Rapporteur you clearly explain your reasons properly.
As to the substance, what I proposed in my suggestions of 19 September was a wording that based itself on what IMHO I was seeing as an emerging consensus (I think, Paul, Milton, Beckie and others had supported it), i.e. that according to the principle of effective choice registries and ICANN would start with an overall “menu approach” to applicable law – they would decide (together).
Within that overall approach, the three initial options proposed by Raphaël would be possible outcomes – i.e. they would not be mutually exclusive: some registries (probably the “traditional” ones –if I may say so- and those with strong ties with the US) would exercise their option in leaving things as is (=”Californian option”), others would go for the “carve out” (as designated by Raphaël) and, finally, I mentioned that, given this freedom, there could be other possibilities.
Hope this helps
Jorge
*Von:* Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com] *Gesendet:* Mittwoch, 27. September 2017 19:41
*An:* Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> *Cc:* ws2-jurisdiction <ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> *Betreff:* Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Updated "Applicable Law and Choice of Venue Provisions" Recommendation
Jorge,
Let's stop talking about process. It's only getting repetitive. I will say I do not believe I am driving the debate in any specific direction; frankly, I do not even see a basis for saying that.
I have noted that there has been some open and fruitful discussion of the Menu approach on the list. As I've indicated several times now, it is my view as rapporteur that the group has not settled on that as "common ground."
We've clearly had a lack of attention to this document, due to continuing focus on the OFAC Recommendations. As such, it is very much a work in progress and no outcomes are foreclosed.
It is time now to determine where the common ground lies, if we have one. Honestly, I will be happy with any result.
Finally, if you won't answer my questions on the substance of your suggestions as rapporteur, consider them re-asked in my personal role. I look forward to your reply.
Best regards,
Greg
On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 1:28 PM, <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> wrote:
Dear Greg,
I feel my suggestions speak for themselves and I'm happy to explain to members of the group who might have concerns - fact is that no one had voiced such in more than a week and that it is only you interrogating on them. But it is not your role to drive the debate in one specific direction when it is open and ongoing.
and again, the facts are that there was an open document, where all Subgroup members could suggest edits. Raphaël and I did so. I saw Raphaëls text and he saw mine – and did not object to the way I saw things. Nobody else did comment or object to my suggested wording.
Moreover, the “menu” approach had been supported on list, with different nuances, on list by various other subgroup participants.
Fact is that immediately before circulating the doc you made your personal changes, taking a specific view not supported by anyone else in the document comments, and after making those changes you immediately sent out the text with your revised text – hence not giving any chance to react to your “reverting” or “putting back”.
These actions would be considered as profoundly contrary to a Rapporteur neutrality in many other fore, where the Rapporteur has to remain neutral, not take sides and help bridge differences.
best
Jorge
________________________________
Von: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> Datum: 27. September 2017 um 19:19:56 MESZ An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> Cc: ws2-jurisdiction <ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> Betreff: Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Updated "Applicable Law and Choice of Venue Provisions" Recommendation
Jorge,
Once again, you puzzle me. I believe that I am being both neutral and transparent (everything is happening on the list and in the documents, so I have no idea what is not "transparent"). Clearly, your draft changes were merely suggestions, and my discussion of it was in that context. I'm sorry that was not apparent to you.
Nonetheless, I'm sure it would help the Subgroup understand your suggestions if you would explain how your suggested text maintains the option of a fixed choice of California/US law. The reasons that is not clear are in my prior email. I'm hoping that it is not difficult to answer, and will aid the group in considering your suggestions.
Just to be clear, based on my understanding and experience with Chairs/rapporteurs, it is very much part of the role to ask follow-up questions to draw out details, eliminate ambiguity, and resolve potential areas of concern. I'm sorry you believe that makes no sense. Hopefully you will reconsider.
In any event, I would appreciate your assisting the Subgroup by clarifying the ambiguities I have asked about. Detailed discussions of process while not discussing substance will not get the Subgroup where it needs to go.
Best regards,
Greg
On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 12:51 PM, <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto: Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>> wrote: Dear Greg,
I feel that this questioning and interrogatory modus regarding my suggestions in an open and ongoing doc makes no sense.
You said I had "eliminated" something - that is not only absurd (I was suggesting) but inaccurate (I suggested that a free standing option is a possible outcome).
Please just refrain to making such interventions in an open and ongoing process. That is not the role of the Rapporteur. It is not neutral and lacks transparency.
best
Jorge
________________________________
Von: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> Datum: 27. September 2017 um 18:38:03 MESZ An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto: Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>> Cc: ws2-jurisdiction <ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org<mailto: ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org>> Betreff: Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Updated "Applicable Law and Choice of Venue Provisions" Recommendation
Jorge,
Perhaps I did not understand one thing about your draft. You say that the "California" option is not foreclosed, and that it is a potential outcome of the Menu approach.
As I understand it, the Menu approach allows each registry to choose (or perhaps, to negotiate for) one out of a defined list of jurisdictions (e.g., one from each ICANN Geographic Region).
The "California" approach fixes California/US law as the sole choice of law for all registry agreements.
I don't see how the California approach can be a possible outcome of the Menu approach. Do you mean that it is technically possible that every registry will choose California law from the Menu as their individual outcome? Even if that is the outcome (and the chances of that are vanishingly small), that is still an outcome and not the "California" option, which is distinguished by a fixed choice of law.
Please help me and the Subgroup understand better.
Thank you,
Greg
On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 11:47 AM, <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto: Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto: Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>> wrote: Dear Greg,
I feel we have different views of what the rapporteur role is. The facts are that there was an open document, where all Subgroup members could suggest edits. Raphaël and I did so. I saw Raphaëls text and he saw mine – and did not object to the way I saw things. Nobody else did comment or object to my suggested wording. Moreover, the “menu” approach had been supported on list, with different nuances, on list by various other subgroup participants.
You made changes, taking a specific view not supported by anyone else in the document comments, and after making those changes you immediately sent out the text with your revised text – hence not giving any chance to react to your “reverting” or “putting back”.
I find that irregular and improper to the role of the Rapporteur. And it is quite puzzling that you pretend that with my “suggestions” I was closing any debate – I was just proposing wording, which as I said was not objected nor commented by anyone during more than one week.
Btw: I have never taken out the Californian option – I presented it as a potential outcome of the overall Menu approach. See attached the word document I saved in my PC after making my suggestions to the Google Doc on September 19.
Best
Jorge
Von: Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@ gmail.com><mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com
] Gesendet: Mittwoch, 27. September 2017 17:36
An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto: Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto: Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>> Cc: ws2-jurisdiction <ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org<mailto: ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org><mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org<mailto:ws2- jurisdiction@icann.org>>> Betreff: Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Updated "Applicable Law and Choice of Venue Provisions" Recommendation
Jorge,
These changes were made in my role as rapporteur. A key aspect of the rapporteur role is helping the group find outcomes the group broadly supports. Part of this is avoiding a push to define "common ground" prematurely. In my view as rapporteur, the group is not yet at the point where a "common ground" can be declared, and other options eliminated. You will see that today's agenda includes a discussion of the various options.
I am as eager as you are to find common ground, and I thank you for offering your assistance in identifying what you believe to be common ground. However, I believe that it's premature to identify a result at this time. Thus, I edited the text to keep our options open. (I don't believe it's accurate to say I "reverted" the text, since all your suggestions are still in the document, and only a few changes were made by me, to reflect where we stand in our process.) This in no way prevents the group from considering whether the "Menu" option is one where the Subgroup can find common ground. It merely reflects that we have not already done so.
I'm a little puzzled also by your statement that I am "intervening in an open discussion within the group taking very specific positions, instead of letting the debate go forward and helping it reaching consensus when needed." The changes I made were to back the document away from the very specific positions you inserted, in order to keep the debate and discussion open. I'm sorry that was not clear to you.
In the end, this text needs to be revised to identify a result and a recommendation, unless there is a divergence of opinion (and thus no common ground, although this itself would be a "result"). We can also discuss whether to identify the options we did not adopt and the reasons for doing so, or to take your approach and eliminate them from the document (as you did with the "California" option). I hope we can move through this rapidly, while avoiding hasty conclusions, and arrive at a document that reflects a finding of common ground in the group.
I hope this clarifies matters.
Best regards,
Greg
On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 1:49 AM, <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto: Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto: Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>> wrote: Dear Greg,
In the pdf this is not clear.
Are these changes made in your capacity as rapporteur? or are they personal contributions?
I guess they are the latter. In such case this should be made clear in order to avoid any misunderstandings.
I note for the record that I find troublesome that (without making that clear) you are once again intervening in an open discussion within the group taking very specific positions, instead of letting the debate go forward and helping it reaching consensus when needed.
I cannot speak for Raphaêl of course, bit I wonder why you "revert" to his initial text, which I had suggested to amend aiming at a "common ground" I saw emerging, when Raphaël himself had not done so or had not objected to my suggestions.
Hence, I would like to see the document distributed without your changes or if you insist to circulate the version you have changed that you clearly identify your edits as your personal opinion.
best
Jorge
________________________________
Von: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com
<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>>> Datum: 27. September 2017 um 07:40:41 MESZ An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto: Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto: Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>> Cc: ws2-jurisdiction <ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org<mailto: ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org><mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org<mailto:ws2- jurisdiction@icann.org>>> Betreff: Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Updated "Applicable Law and Choice of Venue Provisions" Recommendation
Jorge,
Yes. This is reflected in the Google Doc, and if you mouse over the changes in Word.
Greg
On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 1:39 AM, <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto: Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto: Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto: Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:J orge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>>> wrote: Dear Greg,
The changes in "red ink" are from you?
Thanks for clarifying.
regards
Jorge
________________________________
Von: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com
<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>><mailto: gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com><mailto:gregshat anipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>>>> Datum: 27. September 2017 um 07:33:38 MESZ An: ws2-jurisdiction <ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org<mailto: ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org><mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org<mailto:ws2- jurisdiction@icann.org>><mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org<mailto: ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org><mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org<mailto: ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org>>>> Betreff: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Updated "Applicable Law and Choice of Venue Provisions" Recommendation
All,
Attached is an updated version of this recommendation in Word and PDF formats, found athttps://docs.google.com/document/d/ 1xAyla8FTaL7jZ0D2rYtAzQUr3gEnirTKiAG-kqD0ZSs/edit?usp=sharing (please make all changes in SUGGEST mode).
Please review and be prepared to discuss.
Thank you.
Greg
Dear all, My initial understanding was that of a narrow menu option and that is how I attempted to frame the original document. That being said, I do not have any specific objection having a wider menu vs "set choice" options type of presentation With regards to the consensus you identified Jorge, I added a few comments in the document. In essence, consensus maybe, but in the context of the menu options and and not all the other options. In any case I put back a header there in brackets to indicate its "under discussion" character. And since this Recommendation is to be framed as a suggestion, I thought it could be best to keep all the options discussed in it and to express the consensus in the actual "Recommendation" section at the end. However this might not be the way recommendations should be so this is as much my opinion as a question to the more experienced members of the list. Best, 2017-09-27 20:42 GMT+02:00 Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com>:
Jorge,
Thank you. I share your sentiments completely. I'm sorry that you will miss the call. I will make sure that your suggestions are well considered, even in your absence.
Best regards,
Greg
On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 2:21 PM, <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> wrote:
Dear Greg,
I’m very happy that we may lay these unfortunate disagreements to a rest and I look forward to a continued good cooperation with you on these important issues.
Kind regards
Jorge
Ps: only sorry to miss the call – but I’m still travelling back home from a UN meeting…
*Von:* Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com] *Gesendet:* Mittwoch, 27. September 2017 20:17
*An:* Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> *Cc:* ws2-jurisdiction <ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> *Betreff:* Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Updated "Applicable Law and Choice of Venue Provisions" Recommendation
Jorge,
Thank you for your clarifications. I now see better how the various options related to each other in your suggestions, i.e., that there are a multiplicity of outcomes based on a fairly comprehensive and flexible "menu."
It may be that others have viewed the "Menu" as shorter, e.g., choose from one of the following jurisdictions as the governing law for the entire agreement. But the Subgroup can work that out on the call.
I did not mean to imply that you have not been talking about substance during the work of the Subgroup; indeed, you have been of our most thoughtful and substantive participants. I apologize if this was misunderstood, or if the focus on the immediate discussion obscured the value of your overall contributions. My edits were merely intended to keep the discussion option; I'm sorry if they appeared to be otherwise.
In any event, I look forward to a thoughtful and fruitful discussion of this Recommendation. Thank you for your continuing contributions to the work of the group.
Best regards,
Greg
On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 1:58 PM, <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> wrote:
Dear Greg,
As a matter of fact I have been contributing for months on the substance of this topic. I hope that you refrain in the future from making some last minute edits and/or that if you do it you clarify from the start that you are doing it with your participant hat on – and if you are doing it as Rapporteur you clearly explain your reasons properly.
As to the substance, what I proposed in my suggestions of 19 September was a wording that based itself on what IMHO I was seeing as an emerging consensus (I think, Paul, Milton, Beckie and others had supported it), i.e. that according to the principle of effective choice registries and ICANN would start with an overall “menu approach” to applicable law – they would decide (together).
Within that overall approach, the three initial options proposed by Raphaël would be possible outcomes – i.e. they would not be mutually exclusive: some registries (probably the “traditional” ones –if I may say so- and those with strong ties with the US) would exercise their option in leaving things as is (=”Californian option”), others would go for the “carve out” (as designated by Raphaël) and, finally, I mentioned that, given this freedom, there could be other possibilities.
Hope this helps
Jorge
*Von:* Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com] *Gesendet:* Mittwoch, 27. September 2017 19:41
*An:* Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> *Cc:* ws2-jurisdiction <ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> *Betreff:* Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Updated "Applicable Law and Choice of Venue Provisions" Recommendation
Jorge,
Let's stop talking about process. It's only getting repetitive. I will say I do not believe I am driving the debate in any specific direction; frankly, I do not even see a basis for saying that.
I have noted that there has been some open and fruitful discussion of the Menu approach on the list. As I've indicated several times now, it is my view as rapporteur that the group has not settled on that as "common ground."
We've clearly had a lack of attention to this document, due to continuing focus on the OFAC Recommendations. As such, it is very much a work in progress and no outcomes are foreclosed.
It is time now to determine where the common ground lies, if we have one. Honestly, I will be happy with any result.
Finally, if you won't answer my questions on the substance of your suggestions as rapporteur, consider them re-asked in my personal role. I look forward to your reply.
Best regards,
Greg
On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 1:28 PM, <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> wrote:
Dear Greg,
I feel my suggestions speak for themselves and I'm happy to explain to members of the group who might have concerns - fact is that no one had voiced such in more than a week and that it is only you interrogating on them. But it is not your role to drive the debate in one specific direction when it is open and ongoing.
and again, the facts are that there was an open document, where all Subgroup members could suggest edits. Raphaël and I did so. I saw Raphaëls text and he saw mine – and did not object to the way I saw things. Nobody else did comment or object to my suggested wording.
Moreover, the “menu” approach had been supported on list, with different nuances, on list by various other subgroup participants.
Fact is that immediately before circulating the doc you made your personal changes, taking a specific view not supported by anyone else in the document comments, and after making those changes you immediately sent out the text with your revised text – hence not giving any chance to react to your “reverting” or “putting back”.
These actions would be considered as profoundly contrary to a Rapporteur neutrality in many other fore, where the Rapporteur has to remain neutral, not take sides and help bridge differences.
best
Jorge
________________________________
Von: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> Datum: 27. September 2017 um 19:19:56 MESZ An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> Cc: ws2-jurisdiction <ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> Betreff: Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Updated "Applicable Law and Choice of Venue Provisions" Recommendation
Jorge,
Once again, you puzzle me. I believe that I am being both neutral and transparent (everything is happening on the list and in the documents, so I have no idea what is not "transparent"). Clearly, your draft changes were merely suggestions, and my discussion of it was in that context. I'm sorry that was not apparent to you.
Nonetheless, I'm sure it would help the Subgroup understand your suggestions if you would explain how your suggested text maintains the option of a fixed choice of California/US law. The reasons that is not clear are in my prior email. I'm hoping that it is not difficult to answer, and will aid the group in considering your suggestions.
Just to be clear, based on my understanding and experience with Chairs/rapporteurs, it is very much part of the role to ask follow-up questions to draw out details, eliminate ambiguity, and resolve potential areas of concern. I'm sorry you believe that makes no sense. Hopefully you will reconsider.
In any event, I would appreciate your assisting the Subgroup by clarifying the ambiguities I have asked about. Detailed discussions of process while not discussing substance will not get the Subgroup where it needs to go.
Best regards,
Greg
On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 12:51 PM, <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto: Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>> wrote: Dear Greg,
I feel that this questioning and interrogatory modus regarding my suggestions in an open and ongoing doc makes no sense.
You said I had "eliminated" something - that is not only absurd (I was suggesting) but inaccurate (I suggested that a free standing option is a possible outcome).
Please just refrain to making such interventions in an open and ongoing process. That is not the role of the Rapporteur. It is not neutral and lacks transparency.
best
Jorge
________________________________
Von: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com
Datum: 27. September 2017 um 18:38:03 MESZ An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto: Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>> Cc: ws2-jurisdiction <ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org<mailto: ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org>> Betreff: Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Updated "Applicable Law and Choice of Venue Provisions" Recommendation
Jorge,
Perhaps I did not understand one thing about your draft. You say that the "California" option is not foreclosed, and that it is a potential outcome of the Menu approach.
As I understand it, the Menu approach allows each registry to choose (or perhaps, to negotiate for) one out of a defined list of jurisdictions (e.g., one from each ICANN Geographic Region).
The "California" approach fixes California/US law as the sole choice of law for all registry agreements.
I don't see how the California approach can be a possible outcome of the Menu approach. Do you mean that it is technically possible that every registry will choose California law from the Menu as their individual outcome? Even if that is the outcome (and the chances of that are vanishingly small), that is still an outcome and not the "California" option, which is distinguished by a fixed choice of law.
Please help me and the Subgroup understand better.
Thank you,
Greg
On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 11:47 AM, <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto: Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto: Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>> wrote: Dear Greg,
I feel we have different views of what the rapporteur role is. The facts are that there was an open document, where all Subgroup members could suggest edits. Raphaël and I did so. I saw Raphaëls text and he saw mine – and did not object to the way I saw things. Nobody else did comment or object to my suggested wording. Moreover, the “menu” approach had been supported on list, with different nuances, on list by various other subgroup participants.
You made changes, taking a specific view not supported by anyone else in the document comments, and after making those changes you immediately sent out the text with your revised text – hence not giving any chance to react to your “reverting” or “putting back”.
I find that irregular and improper to the role of the Rapporteur. And it is quite puzzling that you pretend that with my “suggestions” I was closing any debate – I was just proposing wording, which as I said was not objected nor commented by anyone during more than one week.
Btw: I have never taken out the Californian option – I presented it as a potential outcome of the overall Menu approach. See attached the word document I saved in my PC after making my suggestions to the Google Doc on September 19.
Best
Jorge
Von: Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto: gregshatanipc@gmail.com><mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto: gregshatanipc@gmail.com>>] Gesendet: Mittwoch, 27. September 2017 17:36
An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto: Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto: Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>> Cc: ws2-jurisdiction <ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org<mailto: ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org><mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org<mailto: ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org>>> Betreff: Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Updated "Applicable Law and Choice of Venue Provisions" Recommendation
Jorge,
These changes were made in my role as rapporteur. A key aspect of the rapporteur role is helping the group find outcomes the group broadly supports. Part of this is avoiding a push to define "common ground" prematurely. In my view as rapporteur, the group is not yet at the point where a "common ground" can be declared, and other options eliminated. You will see that today's agenda includes a discussion of the various options.
I am as eager as you are to find common ground, and I thank you for offering your assistance in identifying what you believe to be common ground. However, I believe that it's premature to identify a result at this time. Thus, I edited the text to keep our options open. (I don't believe it's accurate to say I "reverted" the text, since all your suggestions are still in the document, and only a few changes were made by me, to reflect where we stand in our process.) This in no way prevents the group from considering whether the "Menu" option is one where the Subgroup can find common ground. It merely reflects that we have not already done so.
I'm a little puzzled also by your statement that I am "intervening in an open discussion within the group taking very specific positions, instead of letting the debate go forward and helping it reaching consensus when needed." The changes I made were to back the document away from the very specific positions you inserted, in order to keep the debate and discussion open. I'm sorry that was not clear to you.
In the end, this text needs to be revised to identify a result and a recommendation, unless there is a divergence of opinion (and thus no common ground, although this itself would be a "result"). We can also discuss whether to identify the options we did not adopt and the reasons for doing so, or to take your approach and eliminate them from the document (as you did with the "California" option). I hope we can move through this rapidly, while avoiding hasty conclusions, and arrive at a document that reflects a finding of common ground in the group.
I hope this clarifies matters.
Best regards,
Greg
On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 1:49 AM, <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto: Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto: Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>> wrote: Dear Greg,
In the pdf this is not clear.
Are these changes made in your capacity as rapporteur? or are they personal contributions?
I guess they are the latter. In such case this should be made clear in order to avoid any misunderstandings.
I note for the record that I find troublesome that (without making that clear) you are once again intervening in an open discussion within the group taking very specific positions, instead of letting the debate go forward and helping it reaching consensus when needed.
I cannot speak for Raphaêl of course, bit I wonder why you "revert" to his initial text, which I had suggested to amend aiming at a "common ground" I saw emerging, when Raphaël himself had not done so or had not objected to my suggestions.
Hence, I would like to see the document distributed without your changes or if you insist to circulate the version you have changed that you clearly identify your edits as your personal opinion.
best
Jorge
________________________________
Von: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com
<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>>> Datum: 27. September 2017 um 07:40:41 MESZ An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto: Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto: Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>> Cc: ws2-jurisdiction <ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org<mailto: ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org><mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org<mailto: ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org>>> Betreff: Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Updated "Applicable Law and Choice of Venue Provisions" Recommendation
Jorge,
Yes. This is reflected in the Google Doc, and if you mouse over the changes in Word.
Greg
On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 1:39 AM, <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto: Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto: Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:J orge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto: Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>>> wrote: Dear Greg,
The changes in "red ink" are from you?
Thanks for clarifying.
regards
Jorge
________________________________
Von: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com
<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>><mailto: gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com><mailto: gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>>>> Datum: 27. September 2017 um 07:33:38 MESZ An: ws2-jurisdiction <ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org<mailto: ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org><mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org<mailto: ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org>><mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org<mailto: ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org><mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org<mailto: ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org>>>> Betreff: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Updated "Applicable Law and Choice of Venue Provisions" Recommendation
All,
Attached is an updated version of this recommendation in Word and PDF formats, found athttps://docs.google.com/docu ment/d/1xAyla8FTaL7jZ0D2rYtAzQUr3gEnirTKiAG-kqD0ZSs/edit?usp=sharing (please make all changes in SUGGEST mode).
Please review and be prepared to discuss.
Thank you.
Greg
_______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
-- Raphaël Beauregard-Lacroix LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rapha%C3%ABl-beauregard-lacroix-88733786/> - @rbl0012 <https://twitter.com/rbl0112> - M: +33 7 86 39 18 15
participants (3)
-
Greg Shatan -
Jorge.Cancio＠bakom.admin.ch -
Raphaël BEAUREGARD-LACROIX