Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Updated "Applicable Law and Choice of Venue Provisions" Recommendation
Jorge, I unfortunately haven't had more than a cursory reading of your proposed changes. I should certainly have done so before in order to give you proper feedback, but since my last inputs from last week I haven't had enough time to give them a proper read. As such, as of now, I cannot really state my position on the whole matter (and I am unfortunately not in circumstances where I can spare enough time before the call to do so.) Rest assured that I will go over your edits tomorrow. Best, On 27 Sep 2017 17:47, <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] *Gesendet:* Mittwoch, 27. September 2017 17:36 *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, 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> 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> Datum: 27. September 2017 um 07:40:41 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, 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>> 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>> Datum: 27. September 2017 um 07:33:38 MESZ An: ws2-jurisdiction <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 at https://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 _______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
Dear Raphaël, Allow me just to clarify: what I meant is not that you agree with my suggestions, but that –according to the document data- you worked on the document on September 21 and 22 (after I had made my suggestions on Sept. 19 – the last day I worked on the doc), and that you did not object to my wording proposals – again: this is not in any way an agreement on your side. It just shows that the discussion was ongoing and open, and that no re-editing from the Rapporteur was warranted in my view. Kind regards Jorge Von: Raphaël BEAUREGARD-LACROIX [mailto:raphael.beauregardlacroix@sciencespo.fr] Gesendet: Mittwoch, 27. September 2017 17:58 An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> Cc: ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org; gregshatanipc@gmail.com Betreff: Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Updated "Applicable Law and Choice of Venue Provisions" Recommendation Jorge, I unfortunately haven't had more than a cursory reading of your proposed changes. I should certainly have done so before in order to give you proper feedback, but since my last inputs from last week I haven't had enough time to give them a proper read. As such, as of now, I cannot really state my position on the whole matter (and I am unfortunately not in circumstances where I can spare enough time before the call to do so.) Rest assured that I will go over your edits tomorrow. Best, On 27 Sep 2017 17:47, <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>] Gesendet: Mittwoch, 27. September 2017 17:36 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, 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>> 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>> Datum: 27. September 2017 um 07:40:41 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, 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>>> 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>>> 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>>> 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 at https://docs.google.com/document/d/1xAyla8FTaL7jZ0D2rYtAzQUr3gEnirTKiAG-kqD0... (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<mailto:Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
I believe that we all agree that the discussion is ongoing and open, nothing is foreclosed, and that all the suggestions currently in the document are just that - suggestions. I am happy to clarify that to the list (indeed, I think I just have). For the good of the process, I'm happy to recirculate the documents with that clarification as well. I hope that resolves matters, and we can get back to discussing the substance, rather than the process. Best regards, Greg On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 12:06 PM, <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> wrote:
Dear Raphaël,
Allow me just to clarify: what I meant is not that you agree with my suggestions, but that –according to the document data- you worked on the document on September 21 and 22 (after I had made my suggestions on Sept. 19 – the last day I worked on the doc), and that you did not object to my wording proposals – again: this is not in any way an agreement on your side. It just shows that the discussion was ongoing and open, and that no re-editing from the Rapporteur was warranted in my view.
Kind regards
Jorge
*Von:* Raphaël BEAUREGARD-LACROIX [mailto:raphael. beauregardlacroix@sciencespo.fr] *Gesendet:* Mittwoch, 27. September 2017 17:58 *An:* Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> *Cc:* ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org; gregshatanipc@gmail.com
*Betreff:* Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Updated "Applicable Law and Choice of Venue Provisions" Recommendation
Jorge,
I unfortunately haven't had more than a cursory reading of your proposed changes. I should certainly have done so before in order to give you proper feedback, but since my last inputs from last week I haven't had enough time to give them a proper read. As such, as of now, I cannot really state my position on the whole matter (and I am unfortunately not in circumstances where I can spare enough time before the call to do so.) Rest assured that I will go over your edits tomorrow.
Best,
On 27 Sep 2017 17:47, <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] *Gesendet:* Mittwoch, 27. September 2017 17:36
*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,
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> 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> Datum: 27. September 2017 um 07:40:41 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,
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>> 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>> Datum: 27. September 2017 um 07:33:38 MESZ An: ws2-jurisdiction <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 at https://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
_______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
_______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
Raphael, I just want to remind you that the document will be discussed (not for the last time, of course) on today's call at 19:00 UTC. If it's possible for you to review these changes before the call and/or to be on the call, that will help us move forward. However, I completely understand if other aspects of life don't allow for that. Best regards, Greg On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 11:57 AM, Raphaël BEAUREGARD-LACROIX < raphael.beauregardlacroix@sciencespo.fr> wrote:
Jorge,
I unfortunately haven't had more than a cursory reading of your proposed changes. I should certainly have done so before in order to give you proper feedback, but since my last inputs from last week I haven't had enough time to give them a proper read. As such, as of now, I cannot really state my position on the whole matter (and I am unfortunately not in circumstances where I can spare enough time before the call to do so.) Rest assured that I will go over your edits tomorrow.
Best,
On 27 Sep 2017 17:47, <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] *Gesendet:* Mittwoch, 27. September 2017 17:36
*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,
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> 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> Datum: 27. September 2017 um 07:40:41 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,
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>> 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>> Datum: 27. September 2017 um 07:33:38 MESZ An: ws2-jurisdiction <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 at https://docs.google.com/docume nt/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
participants (3)
-
Greg Shatan -
Jorge.Cancio＠bakom.admin.ch -
Raphaël BEAUREGARD-LACROIX