Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] CONSENSUS CALL ON NOTE 4.1 TEXTS: Almost Final Draft Report for Review before Submission to Plenary on 2 March
I was hoping for clear "middle ground text" but failing that I believe my balance approach means supported for option 3, both proposals to be published and seek any feedback from the Community during Public Comment. On Mar 2, 2018 18:15, "Arasteh" <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote: Dear All I have supported Thiago proposal as also supported by Jorge. I therefore maintain my support Regards Kavouss Sent from my iPhone On 2 Mar 2018, at 07:45, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote: All, We need to come to consensus on how to deal with the two proposed texts resulting from "Note 4.1." I've reviewed the captioning, chat, email list & draft to figure out the most appropriate way forward, and a clear result emerges. On this point only, I'm extending the deadline to *20:00 UTC*. (Any other points, the deadline is still 18:00 UTC.) The bottom line is this: *Unless one or both texts ("as is" or with agreed modifications) emerges as a consensus choice (i.e., "a position where ... most agree") between now (06:30 UTC) and 20:00 UTC, neither text will be in the Draft Report.* * Please quickly indicate your support for one of the following alternatives:1. Support first proposal only.2. Support second proposal only.3. Support both proposals.4. No change; neither text will be in the Report. Thank you.* The draft report is attached in Word and PDF. In addition, I found it helpful to pull together a detailed timeline to best understand where we are and how we got here. The long version of the timeline is attached. The chat and captioning are here <https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=79434430>. The short version of the timeline is this: - We discussed Note 4.1 on the call. The objective was identified as "showing the public that we took their comments into account." We ran through various alternatives, which had little support and a few objections. I noted that nothing was jelling. - Based on the various alternatives I suggested a "middle ground." - There seemed to be support for this approach and I said "I think we can take that as the result of 4.1." There was no objection and we moved on to the rest of the call. - As the call was winding up, Thiago wrote in chat, "On the outstanding point 4.1, which is outstanding I understand, may I try to lend you a hand in finding that delicate balance?" and provided some text. The first part was largely the same as text that was objected to earlier in the call; the second part was new. - The call was breaking up and there was no discussion of this suggestion, though Kavouss and Jorge supported it in the chat. We noted that the proposal could be reviewed on the list. - In the Draft Report, I included both proposed texts -- the text I prepared based on the "middle ground" discussion in the group and the text that Thiago put in the chat. Procedurally, we are in a somewhat muddled position. First, this was not actually an outstanding point at the end of the call, so I was mistaken in treating it as if it were. Second, while the Draft Report makes it look like both proposals could end up in the Report, the second suggestion (from the end of the call) was intended to be a replacement for the first one (identified as the "result of 4.1" earlier in the call). A hyper-technical view would be that the second suggestion was out of order and should not be considered. We would then have one suggestion and life would be simpler. Another hyper-technical view would be that the suggestions were intended to be alternatives and must be treated as a "one or the other (or neither)" decision. I think it's simpler (and less technical) to look at it this way: We have two proposals. Both are possibilities. Neither text was really discussed on the call. The first text was based on a conceptual understanding that seemed to get traction, but the text wasn't discussed. The second text was suggested at the very end of the call and wasn't discussed either. We have less than 24 hours before this Draft Report must be submitted, and it must be the consensus view of the Subgroup. With this lack of consideration, neither text can claim to be the consensus view of the Subgroup and a "no objections" approach would be inappropriate. *As such, unless one or both texts ("as is" or with agreed modifications) emerges as a consensus choice (i.e., "a position where ... most agree") between now (06:30 UTC) and 22:00 UTC, neither text will be in the Draft Report.* *Please quickly indicate your support for one of the following alternatives:* *1. Support first proposal only.* *2. Support second proposal only.* *3. Support both proposals.* *4. No change; neither text will be in the Report.* Greg On Thu, Mar 1, 2018 at 12:07 PM Raphaël BEAUREGARD-LACROIX < raphael.beauregardlacroix@sciencespo.fr> wrote:
Dear all,
Would it be possible to keep both the first (generic) statement *and *the second, more specific one? While it is slightly repetitive, the second can serve as an example to the first.
Best,
2018-03-01 15:40 GMT+01:00 <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>:
Dear Greg and all,
If I understand your email below correctly, and consistent with what was agreed yesterday, you are consulting the list on the latest text that Thiago proposed on note 4.1, i.e. the following addition, right?:
“The late suggestion added to the report that “Further Discussions of Jurisdiction-Related Concerns” are needed, in particular on jurisdictional immunities, found echo in several comments subsequently received, but these comments did not bring any changes to the report, nor could they be considered in detail, on the understanding that the existing support for “further discussions” to address unresolved concerns, including in other fora, had already been acknowledged”
As said yesterday I have no objections to such an addition.
Best regards
Jorge
*Von:* Ws2-jurisdiction [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org] *Im Auftrag von *Greg Shatan *Gesendet:* Donnerstag, 1. März 2018 00:22 *An:* ws2-jurisdiction <ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> *Betreff:* [Ws2-jurisdiction] Fwd: PLEASE REVIEW: Almost Final Draft Report for Review before Submission to Plenary on 2 March
All,
Attached in Word and PDF is the almost final Draft Report, based on today’s call. This is also available in Google Docs at https://docs.google.com/document/d/1rdMJyvZdyN9TApT6gx_3Nwpd vIL7YKHEUD7tNfLf6hU/edit?usp=sharing.
Please review and comment. I have marked in the margin the sections corresponding to the “Notes” in the chart distributed before today’s call.
In particular please review and respond to the suggested text on page 12 at the end of the “Overview of the Work of the Subgroup.” There are two proposed additions that grew out of Note 4.1. The first received broad support on the call without noted objections.
The second received both support and objections on the call. Since there was no clear path forward from the call, it is important that as many participants as possible give this careful consideration and provide their views on this second proposed addition. This text reads as follows:
The late suggestion added to the report that “Further Discussions of Jurisdiction-Related Concerns” are needed, in particular on jurisdictional immunities, found echo in several comments subsequently received, but these comments did not bring any changes to the report, nor could they be considered in detail, on the understanding that the existing support for “further discussions” to address unresolved concerns, including in other fora, had already been acknowledged.
I look forward to hearing from you all, with regard to the report as a whole and any specific aspects, in particular the proposed text above.
Since the final draft must be submitted no later than 23:59 UTC on 2 March, I am setting *a deadline of 18:00 UTC on 2 March* for all responses.
Thank you!
Greg
_________________________________________________________________ This message is being sent from a Law Firm and may contain CONFIDENTIAL or PRIVILEGED information. If you are not the intended recipient, do not print, copy or distribute this message or any attachments. Advise the sender immediately by reply e-mail, and delete this message and attachments without retaining a copy.
*Disclaimer*
The information contained in this communication from the sender is confidential. It is intended solely for use by the recipient and others authorized to receive it. If you are not the recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or taking action in relation of the contents of this information is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful.
This email has been scanned for viruses and malware, and may have been automatically archived by *Mimecast Ltd*, an innovator in Software as a Service (SaaS) for business. Providing a *safer* and *more useful* place for your human generated data. Specializing in; Security, archiving and compliance. To find out more Click Here <http://www.mimecast.com/products/>.
_______________________________________________ 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>
<Note 4.1 Timeline.docx> <CCWG-Accountability-WS2-Jurisdiction-Final Draft v1.2.7.docx> <CCWG-Accountability-WS2-Jurisdiction-Final Draft v1.2.7.pdf> _______________________________________________ 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
I agree with CLO that this has to be left open to Public Comment. Thus, Option 3. I would also add that whatever is said in the Report, the matter is bound to be debated in the GAC. CW
On 2 Mar 2018, at 13:34, Cheryl Langdon-Orr <langdonorr@gmail.com <mailto:langdonorr@gmail.com>> wrote:
I was hoping for clear "middle ground text" but failing that I believe my balance approach means supported for option 3, both proposals to be published and seek any feedback from the Community during Public Comment.
On Mar 2, 2018 18:15, "Arasteh" <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> wrote: Dear All I have supported Thiago proposal as also supported by Jorge. I therefore maintain my support Regards Kavouss
Sent from my iPhone
On 2 Mar 2018, at 07:45, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> wrote:
All,
We need to come to consensus on how to deal with the two proposed texts resulting from "Note 4.1." I've reviewed the captioning, chat, email list & draft to figure out the most appropriate way forward, and a clear result emerges. On this point only, I'm extending the deadline to 20:00 UTC. (Any other points, the deadline is still 18:00 UTC.)
The bottom line is this: Unless one or both texts ("as is" or with agreed modifications) emerges as a consensus choice (i.e., "a position where ... most agree") between now (06:30 UTC) and 20:00 UTC, neither text will be in the Draft Report.
Please quickly indicate your support for one of the following alternatives:
1. Support first proposal only. 2. Support second proposal only. 3. Support both proposals. 4. No change; neither text will be in the Report.
Thank you.
The draft report is attached in Word and PDF. In addition, I found it helpful to pull together a detailed timeline to best understand where we are and how we got here. The long version of the timeline is attached. The chat and captioning are here <https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=79434430>.
The short version of the timeline is this: We discussed Note 4.1 on the call. The objective was identified as "showing the public that we took their comments into account." We ran through various alternatives, which had little support and a few objections. I noted that nothing was jelling. Based on the various alternatives I suggested a "middle ground." There seemed to be support for this approach and I said "I think we can take that as the result of 4.1." There was no objection and we moved on to the rest of the call. As the call was winding up, Thiago wrote in chat, "On the outstanding point 4.1, which is outstanding I understand, may I try to lend you a hand in finding that delicate balance?" and provided some text. The first part was largely the same as text that was objected to earlier in the call; the second part was new. The call was breaking up and there was no discussion of this suggestion, though Kavouss and Jorge supported it in the chat. We noted that the proposal could be reviewed on the list. In the Draft Report, I included both proposed texts -- the text I prepared based on the "middle ground" discussion in the group and the text that Thiago put in the chat. Procedurally, we are in a somewhat muddled position. First, this was not actually an outstanding point at the end of the call, so I was mistaken in treating it as if it were. Second, while the Draft Report makes it look like both proposals could end up in the Report, the second suggestion (from the end of the call) was intended to be a replacement for the first one (identified as the "result of 4.1" earlier in the call).
A hyper-technical view would be that the second suggestion was out of order and should not be considered. We would then have one suggestion and life would be simpler. Another hyper-technical view would be that the suggestions were intended to be alternatives and must be treated as a "one or the other (or neither)" decision.
I think it's simpler (and less technical) to look at it this way:
We have two proposals. Both are possibilities. Neither text was really discussed on the call. The first text was based on a conceptual understanding that seemed to get traction, but the text wasn't discussed. The second text was suggested at the very end of the call and wasn't discussed either. We have less than 24 hours before this Draft Report must be submitted, and it must be the consensus view of the Subgroup. With this lack of consideration, neither text can claim to be the consensus view of the Subgroup and a "no objections" approach would be inappropriate.
As such, unless one or both texts ("as is" or with agreed modifications) emerges as a consensus choice (i.e., "a position where ... most agree") between now (06:30 UTC) and 22:00 UTC, neither text will be in the Draft Report.
Please quickly indicate your support for one of the following alternatives:
1. Support first proposal only. 2. Support second proposal only. 3. Support both proposals. 4. No change; neither text will be in the Report.
Greg
On Thu, Mar 1, 2018 at 12:07 PM Raphaël BEAUREGARD-LACROIX <raphael.beauregardlacroix@sciencespo.fr <mailto:raphael.beauregardlacroix@sciencespo.fr>> wrote: Dear all,
Would it be possible to keep both the first (generic) statement and the second, more specific one? While it is slightly repetitive, the second can serve as an example to the first.
Best,
2018-03-01 15:40 GMT+01:00 <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>: Dear Greg and all,
If I understand your email below correctly, and consistent with what was agreed yesterday, you are consulting the list on the latest text that Thiago proposed on note 4.1, i.e. the following addition, right?:
“The late suggestion added to the report that “Further Discussions of Jurisdiction-Related Concerns” are needed, in particular on jurisdictional immunities, found echo in several comments subsequently received, but these comments did not bring any changes to the report, nor could they be considered in detail, on the understanding that the existing support for “further discussions” to address unresolved concerns, including in other fora, had already been acknowledged”
As said yesterday I have no objections to such an addition.
Best regards
Jorge
Von: Ws2-jurisdiction [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org>] Im Auftrag von Greg Shatan Gesendet: Donnerstag, 1. März 2018 00:22 An: ws2-jurisdiction <ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org>> Betreff: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Fwd: PLEASE REVIEW: Almost Final Draft Report for Review before Submission to Plenary on 2 March
All,
Attached in Word and PDF is the almost final Draft Report, based on today’s call. This is also available in Google Docs at https://docs.google.com/document/d/1rdMJyvZdyN9TApT6gx_3NwpdvIL7YKHEUD7tNfLf... <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1rdMJyvZdyN9TApT6gx_3NwpdvIL7YKHEUD7tNfLf...>.
Please review and comment. I have marked in the margin the sections corresponding to the “Notes” in the chart distributed before today’s call.
In particular please review and respond to the suggested text on page 12 at the end of the “Overview of the Work of the Subgroup.” There are two proposed additions that grew out of Note 4.1. The first received broad support on the call without noted objections.
The second received both support and objections on the call. Since there was no clear path forward from the call, it is important that as many participants as possible give this careful consideration and provide their views on this second proposed addition. This text reads as follows:
The late suggestion added to the report that “Further Discussions of Jurisdiction-Related Concerns” are needed, in particular on jurisdictional immunities, found echo in several comments subsequently received, but these comments did not bring any changes to the report, nor could they be considered in detail, on the understanding that the existing support for “further discussions” to address unresolved concerns, including in other fora, had already been acknowledged.
I look forward to hearing from you all, with regard to the report as a whole and any specific aspects, in particular the proposed text above.
Since the final draft must be submitted no later than 23:59 UTC on 2 March, I am setting a deadline of 18:00 UTC on 2 March for all responses.
Thank you!
Greg
_________________________________________________________________ This message is being sent from a Law Firm and may contain CONFIDENTIAL or PRIVILEGED information. If you are not the intended recipient, do not print, copy or distribute this message or any attachments. Advise the sender immediately by reply e-mail, and delete this message and attachments without retaining a copy.
Disclaimer
The information contained in this communication from the sender is confidential. It is intended solely for use by the recipient and others authorized to receive it. If you are not the recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or taking action in relation of the contents of this information is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful.
This email has been scanned for viruses and malware, and may have been automatically archived by Mimecast Ltd, an innovator in Software as a Service (SaaS) for business. Providing a safer and more useful place for your human generated data. Specializing in; Security, archiving and compliance. To find out more Click Here <http://www.mimecast.com/products/>.
_______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org <mailto:Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction>
-- Raphaël Beauregard-Lacroix LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rapha%C3%ABl-beauregard-lacroix-88733786/> - @rbl0012 <https://twitter.com/rbl0112><Note 4.1 Timeline.docx> <CCWG-Accountability-WS2-Jurisdiction-Final Draft v1.2.7.docx> <CCWG-Accountability-WS2-Jurisdiction-Final Draft v1.2.7.pdf> _______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org <mailto:Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction>
_______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org <mailto:Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction>
_______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org <mailto:Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
Cheryl, I thought that we had arrived at clear middle ground text (in concept) in the middle of the call (reflected in option 1), as we had no objection to that being called the “result” for Note 4.1. All, A few thoughts for all to consider. 1. In this section, we summarize what we did in our Subgroup. This Subgroup is in the best position (possibly the only position) to say whether these statements correctly state what happened. These are not (or should not be) positions, recommendation or substantive discussion, so I don’t see how Public Comment will be useful in getting this right. Public Comment should not be a way to kick the can down the road, as tempting as that might be. 2. Option 2 seems to have some factual inaccuracies that should be resolved if it is used. — ““The late suggestion added to the report that “Further Discussions of Jurisdiction-Related Concerns” are needed, in particular on jurisdictional immunities,” *The “Further Discussions” section does not actually say that discussions are needed “in particular on jurisdictional immunities.” It only says, “As an example, there were discussions of limited, partial, relative or tailored immunity for ICANN that did not come to conclusion.” (I acknowledge there are certain participants who are particularly focused on immunity, but this section of the report is about facts, not positions.)* — “these comments did not bring any changes to the report, nor could they be considered in detail, *Is there a widespread belief that we did not consider every comment in roughly the same detail? That was our intent and I believe that we considered all comments, including the comments alluded to, in an appropriate level of detail. I would be very concerned about providin a report that claimed that certain comments were not considered in detail, which implies that they were neglected in comparison to other comments. I don’t believe that is the case, and it would cast doubt on the entire comment process that would be unwarranted.* — on the understanding that the existing support for “further discussions” to address unresolved concerns, including in other fora, had already been acknowledged” *There was no specific “understanding” regarding these particular comments. Just the general understanding that comments that took a position that was consistent with the report did not change the report (since there would be no change needed). * In order to resolve inaccuracies, if Text #2 were put in the document, it should be revised to read as follows: *For example, the suggestion added to the report that “Further Discussions of Jurisdiction-Related Concerns” are needed was echoed in several comments subsequently received, but these comments did not bring any changes to the report since existing support for “further discussions” to address unresolved concerns, including in other fora, had already been acknowledged.* Greg On Fri, Mar 2, 2018 at 7:49 AM cw@christopherwilkinson.eu < cw@christopherwilkinson.eu> wrote:
I agree with CLO that this has to be left open to Public Comment. Thus, Option 3.
I would also add that whatever is said in the Report, the matter is bound to be debated in the GAC.
CW
On 2 Mar 2018, at 13:34, Cheryl Langdon-Orr <langdonorr@gmail.com> wrote:
I was hoping for clear "middle ground text" but failing that I believe my balance approach means supported for option 3, both proposals to be published and seek any feedback from the Community during Public Comment.
On Mar 2, 2018 18:15, "Arasteh" <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear All I have supported Thiago proposal as also supported by Jorge. I therefore maintain my support Regards Kavouss
Sent from my iPhone
On 2 Mar 2018, at 07:45, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
All,
We need to come to consensus on how to deal with the two proposed texts resulting from "Note 4.1." I've reviewed the captioning, chat, email list & draft to figure out the most appropriate way forward, and a clear result emerges. On this point only, I'm extending the deadline to *20:00 UTC*. (Any other points, the deadline is still 18:00 UTC.)
The bottom line is this: *Unless one or both texts ("as is" or with agreed modifications) emerges as a consensus choice (i.e., "a position where ... most agree") between now (06:30 UTC) and 20:00 UTC, neither text will be in the Draft Report.*
* Please quickly indicate your support for one of the following alternatives:1. Support first proposal only.2. Support second proposal only.3. Support both proposals.4. No change; neither text will be in the Report. Thank you.*
The draft report is attached in Word and PDF. In addition, I found it helpful to pull together a detailed timeline to best understand where we are and how we got here. The long version of the timeline is attached. The chat and captioning are here <https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=79434430>.
The short version of the timeline is this:
- We discussed Note 4.1 on the call. The objective was identified as "showing the public that we took their comments into account." We ran through various alternatives, which had little support and a few objections. I noted that nothing was jelling. - Based on the various alternatives I suggested a "middle ground." - There seemed to be support for this approach and I said "I think we can take that as the result of 4.1." There was no objection and we moved on to the rest of the call. - As the call was winding up, Thiago wrote in chat, "On the outstanding point 4.1, which is outstanding I understand, may I try to lend you a hand in finding that delicate balance?" and provided some text. The first part was largely the same as text that was objected to earlier in the call; the second part was new. - The call was breaking up and there was no discussion of this suggestion, though Kavouss and Jorge supported it in the chat. We noted that the proposal could be reviewed on the list. - In the Draft Report, I included both proposed texts -- the text I prepared based on the "middle ground" discussion in the group and the text that Thiago put in the chat.
Procedurally, we are in a somewhat muddled position. First, this was not actually an outstanding point at the end of the call, so I was mistaken in treating it as if it were. Second, while the Draft Report makes it look like both proposals could end up in the Report, the second suggestion (from the end of the call) was intended to be a replacement for the first one (identified as the "result of 4.1" earlier in the call).
A hyper-technical view would be that the second suggestion was out of order and should not be considered. We would then have one suggestion and life would be simpler. Another hyper-technical view would be that the suggestions were intended to be alternatives and must be treated as a "one or the other (or neither)" decision.
I think it's simpler (and less technical) to look at it this way:
We have two proposals. Both are possibilities. Neither text was really discussed on the call. The first text was based on a conceptual understanding that seemed to get traction, but the text wasn't discussed. The second text was suggested at the very end of the call and wasn't discussed either. We have less than 24 hours before this Draft Report must be submitted, and it must be the consensus view of the Subgroup. With this lack of consideration, neither text can claim to be the consensus view of the Subgroup and a "no objections" approach would be inappropriate.
*As such, unless one or both texts ("as is" or with agreed modifications) emerges as a consensus choice (i.e., "a position where ... most agree") between now (06:30 UTC) and 22:00 UTC, neither text will be in the Draft Report.*
*Please quickly indicate your support for one of the following alternatives:*
*1. Support first proposal only.* *2. Support second proposal only.* *3. Support both proposals.* *4. No change; neither text will be in the Report.*
Greg
On Thu, Mar 1, 2018 at 12:07 PM Raphaël BEAUREGARD-LACROIX < raphael.beauregardlacroix@sciencespo.fr> wrote:
Dear all,
Would it be possible to keep both the first (generic) statement *and *the second, more specific one? While it is slightly repetitive, the second can serve as an example to the first.
Best,
2018-03-01 15:40 GMT+01:00 <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>:
Dear Greg and all,
If I understand your email below correctly, and consistent with what was agreed yesterday, you are consulting the list on the latest text that Thiago proposed on note 4.1, i.e. the following addition, right?:
“The late suggestion added to the report that “Further Discussions of Jurisdiction-Related Concerns” are needed, in particular on jurisdictional immunities, found echo in several comments subsequently received, but these comments did not bring any changes to the report, nor could they be considered in detail, on the understanding that the existing support for “further discussions” to address unresolved concerns, including in other fora, had already been acknowledged”
As said yesterday I have no objections to such an addition.
Best regards
Jorge
*Von:* Ws2-jurisdiction [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org] *Im Auftrag von *Greg Shatan *Gesendet:* Donnerstag, 1. März 2018 00:22 *An:* ws2-jurisdiction <ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> *Betreff:* [Ws2-jurisdiction] Fwd: PLEASE REVIEW: Almost Final Draft Report for Review before Submission to Plenary on 2 March
All,
Attached in Word and PDF is the almost final Draft Report, based on today’s call. This is also available in Google Docs at https://docs.google.com/document/d/1rdMJyvZdyN9TApT6gx_3NwpdvIL7YKHEUD7tNfLf....
Please review and comment. I have marked in the margin the sections corresponding to the “Notes” in the chart distributed before today’s call.
In particular please review and respond to the suggested text on page 12 at the end of the “Overview of the Work of the Subgroup.” There are two proposed additions that grew out of Note 4.1. The first received broad support on the call without noted objections.
The second received both support and objections on the call. Since there was no clear path forward from the call, it is important that as many participants as possible give this careful consideration and provide their views on this second proposed addition. This text reads as follows:
The late suggestion added to the report that “Further Discussions of Jurisdiction-Related Concerns” are needed, in particular on jurisdictional immunities, found echo in several comments subsequently received, but these comments did not bring any changes to the report, nor could they be considered in detail, on the understanding that the existing support for “further discussions” to address unresolved concerns, including in other fora, had already been acknowledged.
I look forward to hearing from you all, with regard to the report as a whole and any specific aspects, in particular the proposed text above.
Since the final draft must be submitted no later than 23:59 UTC on 2 March, I am setting *a deadline of 18:00 UTC on 2 March* for all responses.
Thank you!
Greg
_________________________________________________________________ This message is being sent from a Law Firm and may contain CONFIDENTIAL or PRIVILEGED information. If you are not the intended recipient, do not print, copy or distribute this message or any attachments. Advise the sender immediately by reply e-mail, and delete this message and attachments without retaining a copy.
*Disclaimer*
The information contained in this communication from the sender is confidential. It is intended solely for use by the recipient and others authorized to receive it. If you are not the recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or taking action in relation of the contents of this information is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful.
This email has been scanned for viruses and malware, and may have been automatically archived by *Mimecast Ltd*, an innovator in Software as a Service (SaaS) for business. Providing a *safer* and *more useful* place for your human generated data. Specializing in; Security, archiving and compliance. To find out more Click Here <http://www.mimecast.com/products/>.
_______________________________________________ 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>
<Note 4.1 Timeline.docx>
<CCWG-Accountability-WS2-Jurisdiction-Final Draft v1.2.7.docx>
<CCWG-Accountability-WS2-Jurisdiction-Final Draft v1.2.7.pdf>
_______________________________________________ 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
_______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
Good evening: From my point of view it is not about kicking the can down the road, it is about moving the whole matter upstairs, where it belongs. In the Board and in the GAC. For the draft, I defer to Cheryl. CW
On 2 Mar 2018, at 18:54, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
Cheryl,
I thought that we had arrived at clear middle ground text (in concept) in the middle of the call (reflected in option 1), as we had no objection to that being called the “result” for Note 4.1.
All,
A few thoughts for all to consider.
1. In this section, we summarize what we did in our Subgroup. This Subgroup is in the best position (possibly the only position) to say whether these statements correctly state what happened. These are not (or should not be) positions, recommendation or substantive discussion, so I don’t see how Public Comment will be useful in getting this right. Public Comment should not be a way to kick the can down the road, as tempting as that might be.
2. Option 2 seems to have some factual inaccuracies that should be resolved if it is used.
— ““The late suggestion added to the report that “Further Discussions of Jurisdiction-Related Concerns” are needed, in particular on jurisdictional immunities,”
The “Further Discussions” section does not actually say that discussions are needed “in particular on jurisdictional immunities.” It only says, “As an example, there were discussions of limited, partial, relative or tailored immunity for ICANN that did not come to conclusion.” (I acknowledge there are certain participants who are particularly focused on immunity, but this section of the report is about facts, not positions.)
— “these comments did not bring any changes to the report, nor could they be considered in detail,
Is there a widespread belief that we did not consider every comment in roughly the same detail? That was our intent and I believe that we considered all comments, including the comments alluded to, in an appropriate level of detail. I would be very concerned about providin a report that claimed that certain comments were not considered in detail, which implies that they were neglected in comparison to other comments. I don’t believe that is the case, and it would cast doubt on the entire comment process that would be unwarranted.
— on the understanding that the existing support for “further discussions” to address unresolved concerns, including in other fora, had already been acknowledged”
There was no specific “understanding” regarding these particular comments. Just the general understanding that comments that took a position that was consistent with the report did not change the report (since there would be no change needed).
In order to resolve inaccuracies, if Text #2 were put in the document, it should be revised to read as follows:
For example, the suggestion added to the report that “Further Discussions of Jurisdiction-Related Concerns” are needed was echoed in several comments subsequently received, but these comments did not bring any changes to the report since existing support for “further discussions” to address unresolved concerns, including in other fora, had already been acknowledged.
Greg
On Fri, Mar 2, 2018 at 7:49 AM cw@christopherwilkinson.eu <mailto:cw@christopherwilkinson.eu> <cw@christopherwilkinson.eu <mailto:cw@christopherwilkinson.eu>> wrote: I agree with CLO that this has to be left open to Public Comment. Thus, Option 3.
I would also add that whatever is said in the Report, the matter is bound to be debated in the GAC.
CW
On 2 Mar 2018, at 13:34, Cheryl Langdon-Orr <langdonorr@gmail.com <mailto:langdonorr@gmail.com>> wrote:
I was hoping for clear "middle ground text" but failing that I believe my balance approach means supported for option 3, both proposals to be published and seek any feedback from the Community during Public Comment.
On Mar 2, 2018 18:15, "Arasteh" <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> wrote: Dear All I have supported Thiago proposal as also supported by Jorge. I therefore maintain my support Regards Kavouss
Sent from my iPhone
On 2 Mar 2018, at 07:45, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> wrote:
All,
We need to come to consensus on how to deal with the two proposed texts resulting from "Note 4.1." I've reviewed the captioning, chat, email list & draft to figure out the most appropriate way forward, and a clear result emerges. On this point only, I'm extending the deadline to 20:00 UTC. (Any other points, the deadline is still 18:00 UTC.)
The bottom line is this: Unless one or both texts ("as is" or with agreed modifications) emerges as a consensus choice (i.e., "a position where ... most agree") between now (06:30 UTC) and 20:00 UTC, neither text will be in the Draft Report.
Please quickly indicate your support for one of the following alternatives:
1. Support first proposal only. 2. Support second proposal only. 3. Support both proposals. 4. No change; neither text will be in the Report.
Thank you.
The draft report is attached in Word and PDF. In addition, I found it helpful to pull together a detailed timeline to best understand where we are and how we got here. The long version of the timeline is attached. The chat and captioning are here <https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=79434430>.
The short version of the timeline is this: We discussed Note 4.1 on the call. The objective was identified as "showing the public that we took their comments into account." We ran through various alternatives, which had little support and a few objections. I noted that nothing was jelling. Based on the various alternatives I suggested a "middle ground." There seemed to be support for this approach and I said "I think we can take that as the result of 4.1." There was no objection and we moved on to the rest of the call. As the call was winding up, Thiago wrote in chat, "On the outstanding point 4.1, which is outstanding I understand, may I try to lend you a hand in finding that delicate balance?" and provided some text. The first part was largely the same as text that was objected to earlier in the call; the second part was new. The call was breaking up and there was no discussion of this suggestion, though Kavouss and Jorge supported it in the chat. We noted that the proposal could be reviewed on the list. In the Draft Report, I included both proposed texts -- the text I prepared based on the "middle ground" discussion in the group and the text that Thiago put in the chat. Procedurally, we are in a somewhat muddled position. First, this was not actually an outstanding point at the end of the call, so I was mistaken in treating it as if it were. Second, while the Draft Report makes it look like both proposals could end up in the Report, the second suggestion (from the end of the call) was intended to be a replacement for the first one (identified as the "result of 4.1" earlier in the call).
A hyper-technical view would be that the second suggestion was out of order and should not be considered. We would then have one suggestion and life would be simpler. Another hyper-technical view would be that the suggestions were intended to be alternatives and must be treated as a "one or the other (or neither)" decision.
I think it's simpler (and less technical) to look at it this way:
We have two proposals. Both are possibilities. Neither text was really discussed on the call. The first text was based on a conceptual understanding that seemed to get traction, but the text wasn't discussed. The second text was suggested at the very end of the call and wasn't discussed either. We have less than 24 hours before this Draft Report must be submitted, and it must be the consensus view of the Subgroup. With this lack of consideration, neither text can claim to be the consensus view of the Subgroup and a "no objections" approach would be inappropriate.
As such, unless one or both texts ("as is" or with agreed modifications) emerges as a consensus choice (i.e., "a position where ... most agree") between now (06:30 UTC) and 22:00 UTC, neither text will be in the Draft Report.
Please quickly indicate your support for one of the following alternatives:
1. Support first proposal only. 2. Support second proposal only. 3. Support both proposals. 4. No change; neither text will be in the Report.
Greg
On Thu, Mar 1, 2018 at 12:07 PM Raphaël BEAUREGARD-LACROIX <raphael.beauregardlacroix@sciencespo.fr <mailto:raphael.beauregardlacroix@sciencespo.fr>> wrote: Dear all,
Would it be possible to keep both the first (generic) statement and the second, more specific one? While it is slightly repetitive, the second can serve as an example to the first.
Best,
2018-03-01 15:40 GMT+01:00 <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>: Dear Greg and all,
If I understand your email below correctly, and consistent with what was agreed yesterday, you are consulting the list on the latest text that Thiago proposed on note 4.1, i.e. the following addition, right?:
“The late suggestion added to the report that “Further Discussions of Jurisdiction-Related Concerns” are needed, in particular on jurisdictional immunities, found echo in several comments subsequently received, but these comments did not bring any changes to the report, nor could they be considered in detail, on the understanding that the existing support for “further discussions” to address unresolved concerns, including in other fora, had already been acknowledged”
As said yesterday I have no objections to such an addition.
Best regards
Jorge
Von: Ws2-jurisdiction [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org>] Im Auftrag von Greg Shatan Gesendet: Donnerstag, 1. März 2018 00:22 An: ws2-jurisdiction <ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org>> Betreff: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Fwd: PLEASE REVIEW: Almost Final Draft Report for Review before Submission to Plenary on 2 March
All,
Attached in Word and PDF is the almost final Draft Report, based on today’s call. This is also available in Google Docs athttps://docs.google.com/document/d/1rdMJyvZdyN9TApT6gx_3NwpdvIL7YKHEUD7tNfLf... <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1rdMJyvZdyN9TApT6gx_3NwpdvIL7YKHEUD7tNfLf...>.
Please review and comment. I have marked in the margin the sections corresponding to the “Notes” in the chart distributed before today’s call.
In particular please review and respond to the suggested text on page 12 at the end of the “Overview of the Work of the Subgroup.” There are two proposed additions that grew out of Note 4.1. The first received broad support on the call without noted objections.
The second received both support and objections on the call. Since there was no clear path forward from the call, it is important that as many participants as possible give this careful consideration and provide their views on this second proposed addition. This text reads as follows:
The late suggestion added to the report that “Further Discussions of Jurisdiction-Related Concerns” are needed, in particular on jurisdictional immunities, found echo in several comments subsequently received, but these comments did not bring any changes to the report, nor could they be considered in detail, on the understanding that the existing support for “further discussions” to address unresolved concerns, including in other fora, had already been acknowledged.
I look forward to hearing from you all, with regard to the report as a whole and any specific aspects, in particular the proposed text above.
Since the final draft must be submitted no later than 23:59 UTC on 2 March, I am setting a deadline of 18:00 UTC on 2 March for all responses.
Thank you!
Greg
_________________________________________________________________ This message is being sent from a Law Firm and may contain CONFIDENTIAL or PRIVILEGED information. If you are not the intended recipient, do not print, copy or distribute this message or any attachments. Advise the sender immediately by reply e-mail, and delete this message and attachments without retaining a copy.
Disclaimer
The information contained in this communication from the sender is confidential. It is intended solely for use by the recipient and others authorized to receive it. If you are not the recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or taking action in relation of the contents of this information is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful.
This email has been scanned for viruses and malware, and may have been automatically archived by Mimecast Ltd, an innovator in Software as a Service (SaaS) for business. Providing a safer and more useful place for your human generated data. Specializing in; Security, archiving and compliance. To find out more Click Here <http://www.mimecast.com/products/>.
_______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org <mailto:Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction>
-- Raphaël Beauregard-Lacroix LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rapha%C3%ABl-beauregard-lacroix-88733786/> - @rbl0012 <https://twitter.com/rbl0112><Note 4.1 Timeline.docx> <CCWG-Accountability-WS2-Jurisdiction-Final Draft v1.2.7.docx> <CCWG-Accountability-WS2-Jurisdiction-Final Draft v1.2.7.pdf> _______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org <mailto:Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction>
_______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org <mailto:Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction>
_______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org <mailto:Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction>
I completely agree with Greg that if option 2 is chosen it needs to be factually accurate. I had not focused on the inaccuracies therein until I saw this noe. I would therefore NOT support option 2 as orignally drafted. As noted in my original email I support option 1. If, however, the drafters were to agree to Greg’s revisions, while I would not prefer option 2 I would not object to it … As noted earlier I think option 3 is confusing. Paul Paul Rosenzweig <mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com O: +1 (202) 547-0660 M: +1 (202) 329-9650 VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 <http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/> www.redbranchconsulting.com My PGP Key: <https://keys.mailvelope.com/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x9A830097CA066684> https://keys.mailvelope.com/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x9A830097CA066684 <https://www.rsaconference.com/events/us18?utm_source=speakers&utm_medium=ema...> From: Ws2-jurisdiction [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Greg Shatan Sent: Friday, March 2, 2018 12:54 PM To: cw@christopherwilkinson.eu Cc: ws2-jurisdiction <ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] CONSENSUS CALL ON NOTE 4.1 TEXTS: Almost Final Draft Report for Review before Submission to Plenary on 2 March Cheryl, I thought that we had arrived at clear middle ground text (in concept) in the middle of the call (reflected in option 1), as we had no objection to that being called the “result” for Note 4.1. All, A few thoughts for all to consider. 1. In this section, we summarize what we did in our Subgroup. This Subgroup is in the best position (possibly the only position) to say whether these statements correctly state what happened. These are not (or should not be) positions, recommendation or substantive discussion, so I don’t see how Public Comment will be useful in getting this right. Public Comment should not be a way to kick the can down the road, as tempting as that might be. 2. Option 2 seems to have some factual inaccuracies that should be resolved if it is used. — ““The late suggestion added to the report that “Further Discussions of Jurisdiction-Related Concerns” are needed, in particular on jurisdictional immunities,” The “Further Discussions” section does not actually say that discussions are needed “in particular on jurisdictional immunities.” It only says, “As an example, there were discussions of limited, partial, relative or tailored immunity for ICANN that did not come to conclusion.” (I acknowledge there are certain participants who are particularly focused on immunity, but this section of the report is about facts, not positions.) — “these comments did not bring any changes to the report, nor could they be considered in detail, Is there a widespread belief that we did not consider every comment in roughly the same detail? That was our intent and I believe that we considered all comments, including the comments alluded to, in an appropriate level of detail. I would be very concerned about providin a report that claimed that certain comments were not considered in detail, which implies that they were neglected in comparison to other comments. I don’t believe that is the case, and it would cast doubt on the entire comment process that would be unwarranted. — on the understanding that the existing support for “further discussions” to address unresolved concerns, including in other fora, had already been acknowledged” There was no specific “understanding” regarding these particular comments. Just the general understanding that comments that took a position that was consistent with the report did not change the report (since there would be no change needed). In order to resolve inaccuracies, if Text #2 were put in the document, it should be revised to read as follows: For example, the suggestion added to the report that “Further Discussions of Jurisdiction-Related Concerns” are needed was echoed in several comments subsequently received, but these comments did not bring any changes to the report since existing support for “further discussions” to address unresolved concerns, including in other fora, had already been acknowledged. Greg On Fri, Mar 2, 2018 at 7:49 AM cw@christopherwilkinson.eu <mailto:cw@christopherwilkinson.eu> <cw@christopherwilkinson.eu <mailto:cw@christopherwilkinson.eu> > wrote: I agree with CLO that this has to be left open to Public Comment. Thus, Option 3. I would also add that whatever is said in the Report, the matter is bound to be debated in the GAC. CW On 2 Mar 2018, at 13:34, Cheryl Langdon-Orr <langdonorr@gmail.com <mailto:langdonorr@gmail.com> > wrote: I was hoping for clear "middle ground text" but failing that I believe my balance approach means supported for option 3, both proposals to be published and seek any feedback from the Community during Public Comment. On Mar 2, 2018 18:15, "Arasteh" <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> > wrote: Dear All I have supported Thiago proposal as also supported by Jorge. I therefore maintain my support Regards Kavouss Sent from my iPhone On 2 Mar 2018, at 07:45, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> > wrote: All, We need to come to consensus on how to deal with the two proposed texts resulting from "Note 4.1." I've reviewed the captioning, chat, email list & draft to figure out the most appropriate way forward, and a clear result emerges. On this point only, I'm extending the deadline to 20:00 UTC. (Any other points, the deadline is still 18:00 UTC.) The bottom line is this: Unless one or both texts ("as is" or with agreed modifications) emerges as a consensus choice (i.e., "a position where ... most agree") between now (06:30 UTC) and 20:00 UTC, neither text will be in the Draft Report. Please quickly indicate your support for one of the following alternatives: 1. Support first proposal only. 2. Support second proposal only. 3. Support both proposals. 4. No change; neither text will be in the Report. Thank you. The draft report is attached in Word and PDF. In addition, I found it helpful to pull together a detailed timeline to best understand where we are and how we got here. The long version of the timeline is attached. The chat and captioning are here <https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=79434430> . The short version of the timeline is this: * We discussed Note 4.1 on the call. The objective was identified as "showing the public that we took their comments into account." We ran through various alternatives, which had little support and a few objections. I noted that nothing was jelling. * Based on the various alternatives I suggested a "middle ground." * There seemed to be support for this approach and I said "I think we can take that as the result of 4.1." There was no objection and we moved on to the rest of the call. * As the call was winding up, Thiago wrote in chat, "On the outstanding point 4.1, which is outstanding I understand, may I try to lend you a hand in finding that delicate balance?" and provided some text. The first part was largely the same as text that was objected to earlier in the call; the second part was new. * The call was breaking up and there was no discussion of this suggestion, though Kavouss and Jorge supported it in the chat. We noted that the proposal could be reviewed on the list. * In the Draft Report, I included both proposed texts -- the text I prepared based on the "middle ground" discussion in the group and the text that Thiago put in the chat. Procedurally, we are in a somewhat muddled position. First, this was not actually an outstanding point at the end of the call, so I was mistaken in treating it as if it were. Second, while the Draft Report makes it look like both proposals could end up in the Report, the second suggestion (from the end of the call) was intended to be a replacement for the first one (identified as the "result of 4.1" earlier in the call). A hyper-technical view would be that the second suggestion was out of order and should not be considered. We would then have one suggestion and life would be simpler. Another hyper-technical view would be that the suggestions were intended to be alternatives and must be treated as a "one or the other (or neither)" decision. I think it's simpler (and less technical) to look at it this way: We have two proposals. Both are possibilities. Neither text was really discussed on the call. The first text was based on a conceptual understanding that seemed to get traction, but the text wasn't discussed. The second text was suggested at the very end of the call and wasn't discussed either. We have less than 24 hours before this Draft Report must be submitted, and it must be the consensus view of the Subgroup. With this lack of consideration, neither text can claim to be the consensus view of the Subgroup and a "no objections" approach would be inappropriate. As such, unless one or both texts ("as is" or with agreed modifications) emerges as a consensus choice (i.e., "a position where ... most agree") between now (06:30 UTC) and 22:00 UTC, neither text will be in the Draft Report. Please quickly indicate your support for one of the following alternatives: 1. Support first proposal only. 2. Support second proposal only. 3. Support both proposals. 4. No change; neither text will be in the Report. Greg On Thu, Mar 1, 2018 at 12:07 PM Raphaël BEAUREGARD-LACROIX <raphael.beauregardlacroix@sciencespo.fr <mailto:raphael.beauregardlacroix@sciencespo.fr> > wrote: Dear all, Would it be possible to keep both the first (generic) statement and the second, more specific one? While it is slightly repetitive, the second can serve as an example to the first. Best, 2018-03-01 15:40 GMT+01:00 <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> >: Dear Greg and all, If I understand your email below correctly, and consistent with what was agreed yesterday, you are consulting the list on the latest text that Thiago proposed on note 4.1, i.e. the following addition, right?: “The late suggestion added to the report that “Further Discussions of Jurisdiction-Related Concerns” are needed, in particular on jurisdictional immunities, found echo in several comments subsequently received, but these comments did not bring any changes to the report, nor could they be considered in detail, on the understanding that the existing support for “further discussions” to address unresolved concerns, including in other fora, had already been acknowledged” As said yesterday I have no objections to such an addition. Best regards Jorge Von: Ws2-jurisdiction [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org> ] Im Auftrag von Greg Shatan Gesendet: Donnerstag, 1. März 2018 00:22 An: ws2-jurisdiction <ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org <mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> > Betreff: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Fwd: PLEASE REVIEW: Almost Final Draft Report for Review before Submission to Plenary on 2 March All, Attached in Word and PDF is the almost final Draft Report, based on today’s call. This is also available in Google Docs at https://docs.google.com/document/d/1rdMJyvZdyN9TApT6gx_3NwpdvIL7YKHEUD7tNfLf.... Please review and comment. I have marked in the margin the sections corresponding to the “Notes” in the chart distributed before today’s call. In particular please review and respond to the suggested text on page 12 at the end of the “Overview of the Work of the Subgroup.” There are two proposed additions that grew out of Note 4.1. The first received broad support on the call without noted objections. The second received both support and objections on the call. Since there was no clear path forward from the call, it is important that as many participants as possible give this careful consideration and provide their views on this second proposed addition. This text reads as follows: The late suggestion added to the report that “Further Discussions of Jurisdiction-Related Concerns” are needed, in particular on jurisdictional immunities, found echo in several comments subsequently received, but these comments did not bring any changes to the report, nor could they be considered in detail, on the understanding that the existing support for “further discussions” to address unresolved concerns, including in other fora, had already been acknowledged. I look forward to hearing from you all, with regard to the report as a whole and any specific aspects, in particular the proposed text above. Since the final draft must be submitted no later than 23:59 UTC on 2 March, I am setting a deadline of 18:00 UTC on 2 March for all responses. Thank you! Greg _________________________________________________________________ This message is being sent from a Law Firm and may contain CONFIDENTIAL or PRIVILEGED information. If you are not the intended recipient, do not print, copy or distribute this message or any attachments. Advise the sender immediately by reply e-mail, and delete this message and attachments without retaining a copy. Disclaimer The information contained in this communication from the sender is confidential. It is intended solely for use by the recipient and others authorized to receive it. If you are not the recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or taking action in relation of the contents of this information is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. This email has been scanned for viruses and malware, and may have been automatically archived by Mimecast Ltd, an innovator in Software as a Service (SaaS) for business. Providing a safer and more useful place for your human generated data. Specializing in; Security, archiving and compliance. To find out more Click Here <http://www.mimecast.com/products/> . _______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org <mailto:Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction -- Raphaël Beauregard-Lacroix <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rapha%C3%ABl-beauregard-lacroix-88733786/> LinkedIn - <https://twitter.com/rbl0112> @rbl0012 <Note 4.1 Timeline.docx> <CCWG-Accountability-WS2-Jurisdiction-Final Draft v1.2.7.docx> <CCWG-Accountability-WS2-Jurisdiction-Final Draft v1.2.7.pdf> _______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org <mailto:Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction _______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org <mailto:Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction _______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org <mailto:Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
I note some support for "no change" and as that's already well established language I can certainly live with that outcome... Please note, I had left the call just before ending to join another call, so wasn't actually present at the moment of any discussion, of the alternative to the middle ground of "Option 1" from earlier in the call but (still a good fall back as well in my view) so my response was specifically to Greg's urgent Concensus Call, to the list, based on the background provided in that email. On Mar 2, 2018 23:34, "Cheryl Langdon-Orr" <langdonorr@gmail.com> wrote:
I was hoping for clear "middle ground text" but failing that I believe my balance approach means supported for option 3, both proposals to be published and seek any feedback from the Community during Public Comment.
On Mar 2, 2018 18:15, "Arasteh" <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear All I have supported Thiago proposal as also supported by Jorge. I therefore maintain my support Regards Kavouss
Sent from my iPhone
On 2 Mar 2018, at 07:45, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
All,
We need to come to consensus on how to deal with the two proposed texts resulting from "Note 4.1." I've reviewed the captioning, chat, email list & draft to figure out the most appropriate way forward, and a clear result emerges. On this point only, I'm extending the deadline to *20:00 UTC*. (Any other points, the deadline is still 18:00 UTC.)
The bottom line is this: *Unless one or both texts ("as is" or with agreed modifications) emerges as a consensus choice (i.e., "a position where ... most agree") between now (06:30 UTC) and 20:00 UTC, neither text will be in the Draft Report.*
* Please quickly indicate your support for one of the following alternatives:1. Support first proposal only.2. Support second proposal only.3. Support both proposals.4. No change; neither text will be in the Report. Thank you.*
The draft report is attached in Word and PDF. In addition, I found it helpful to pull together a detailed timeline to best understand where we are and how we got here. The long version of the timeline is attached. The chat and captioning are here <https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=79434430>.
The short version of the timeline is this:
- We discussed Note 4.1 on the call. The objective was identified as "showing the public that we took their comments into account." We ran through various alternatives, which had little support and a few objections. I noted that nothing was jelling. - Based on the various alternatives I suggested a "middle ground." - There seemed to be support for this approach and I said "I think we can take that as the result of 4.1." There was no objection and we moved on to the rest of the call. - As the call was winding up, Thiago wrote in chat, "On the outstanding point 4.1, which is outstanding I understand, may I try to lend you a hand in finding that delicate balance?" and provided some text. The first part was largely the same as text that was objected to earlier in the call; the second part was new. - The call was breaking up and there was no discussion of this suggestion, though Kavouss and Jorge supported it in the chat. We noted that the proposal could be reviewed on the list. - In the Draft Report, I included both proposed texts -- the text I prepared based on the "middle ground" discussion in the group and the text that Thiago put in the chat.
Procedurally, we are in a somewhat muddled position. First, this was not actually an outstanding point at the end of the call, so I was mistaken in treating it as if it were. Second, while the Draft Report makes it look like both proposals could end up in the Report, the second suggestion (from the end of the call) was intended to be a replacement for the first one (identified as the "result of 4.1" earlier in the call).
A hyper-technical view would be that the second suggestion was out of order and should not be considered. We would then have one suggestion and life would be simpler. Another hyper-technical view would be that the suggestions were intended to be alternatives and must be treated as a "one or the other (or neither)" decision.
I think it's simpler (and less technical) to look at it this way:
We have two proposals. Both are possibilities. Neither text was really discussed on the call. The first text was based on a conceptual understanding that seemed to get traction, but the text wasn't discussed. The second text was suggested at the very end of the call and wasn't discussed either. We have less than 24 hours before this Draft Report must be submitted, and it must be the consensus view of the Subgroup. With this lack of consideration, neither text can claim to be the consensus view of the Subgroup and a "no objections" approach would be inappropriate.
*As such, unless one or both texts ("as is" or with agreed modifications) emerges as a consensus choice (i.e., "a position where ... most agree") between now (06:30 UTC) and 22:00 UTC, neither text will be in the Draft Report.*
*Please quickly indicate your support for one of the following alternatives:*
*1. Support first proposal only.* *2. Support second proposal only.* *3. Support both proposals.* *4. No change; neither text will be in the Report.*
Greg
On Thu, Mar 1, 2018 at 12:07 PM Raphaël BEAUREGARD-LACROIX < raphael.beauregardlacroix@sciencespo.fr> wrote:
Dear all,
Would it be possible to keep both the first (generic) statement *and *the second, more specific one? While it is slightly repetitive, the second can serve as an example to the first.
Best,
2018-03-01 15:40 GMT+01:00 <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>:
Dear Greg and all,
If I understand your email below correctly, and consistent with what was agreed yesterday, you are consulting the list on the latest text that Thiago proposed on note 4.1, i.e. the following addition, right?:
“The late suggestion added to the report that “Further Discussions of Jurisdiction-Related Concerns” are needed, in particular on jurisdictional immunities, found echo in several comments subsequently received, but these comments did not bring any changes to the report, nor could they be considered in detail, on the understanding that the existing support for “further discussions” to address unresolved concerns, including in other fora, had already been acknowledged”
As said yesterday I have no objections to such an addition.
Best regards
Jorge
*Von:* Ws2-jurisdiction [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org] *Im Auftrag von *Greg Shatan *Gesendet:* Donnerstag, 1. März 2018 00:22 *An:* ws2-jurisdiction <ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> *Betreff:* [Ws2-jurisdiction] Fwd: PLEASE REVIEW: Almost Final Draft Report for Review before Submission to Plenary on 2 March
All,
Attached in Word and PDF is the almost final Draft Report, based on today’s call. This is also available in Google Docs at https://docs.google.com/document/d/1rdMJyvZdyN9TApT6gx_3Nwpd vIL7YKHEUD7tNfLf6hU/edit?usp=sharing.
Please review and comment. I have marked in the margin the sections corresponding to the “Notes” in the chart distributed before today’s call.
In particular please review and respond to the suggested text on page 12 at the end of the “Overview of the Work of the Subgroup.” There are two proposed additions that grew out of Note 4.1. The first received broad support on the call without noted objections.
The second received both support and objections on the call. Since there was no clear path forward from the call, it is important that as many participants as possible give this careful consideration and provide their views on this second proposed addition. This text reads as follows:
The late suggestion added to the report that “Further Discussions of Jurisdiction-Related Concerns” are needed, in particular on jurisdictional immunities, found echo in several comments subsequently received, but these comments did not bring any changes to the report, nor could they be considered in detail, on the understanding that the existing support for “further discussions” to address unresolved concerns, including in other fora, had already been acknowledged.
I look forward to hearing from you all, with regard to the report as a whole and any specific aspects, in particular the proposed text above.
Since the final draft must be submitted no later than 23:59 UTC on 2 March, I am setting *a deadline of 18:00 UTC on 2 March* for all responses.
Thank you!
Greg
_________________________________________________________________ This message is being sent from a Law Firm and may contain CONFIDENTIAL or PRIVILEGED information. If you are not the intended recipient, do not print, copy or distribute this message or any attachments. Advise the sender immediately by reply e-mail, and delete this message and attachments without retaining a copy.
*Disclaimer*
The information contained in this communication from the sender is confidential. It is intended solely for use by the recipient and others authorized to receive it. If you are not the recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or taking action in relation of the contents of this information is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful.
This email has been scanned for viruses and malware, and may have been automatically archived by *Mimecast Ltd*, an innovator in Software as a Service (SaaS) for business. Providing a *safer* and *more useful* place for your human generated data. Specializing in; Security, archiving and compliance. To find out more Click Here <http://www.mimecast.com/products/>.
_______________________________________________ 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>
<Note 4.1 Timeline.docx>
<CCWG-Accountability-WS2-Jurisdiction-Final Draft v1.2.7.docx>
<CCWG-Accountability-WS2-Jurisdiction-Final Draft v1.2.7.pdf>
_______________________________________________ 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
Dear all, I vote in support of option #4. Also, I oppose options #2 and #3. -Brian Brian Scarpelli Senior Policy Counsel +1 517-507-1446<mailto:+1%20517-507-1446> | bscarpelli@actonline.org<mailto:bscarpelli@actonline.org> ACT | The App Association 1401 K St NW (Ste 501) Washington, DC 20005 From: Ws2-jurisdiction [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Cheryl Langdon-Orr Sent: Friday, March 2, 2018 1:58 PM To: ws2-jurisdiction <ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] CONSENSUS CALL ON NOTE 4.1 TEXTS: Almost Final Draft Report for Review before Submission to Plenary on 2 March I note some support for "no change" and as that's already well established language I can certainly live with that outcome... Please note, I had left the call just before ending to join another call, so wasn't actually present at the moment of any discussion, of the alternative to the middle ground of "Option 1" from earlier in the call but (still a good fall back as well in my view) so my response was specifically to Greg's urgent Concensus Call, to the list, based on the background provided in that email. On Mar 2, 2018 23:34, "Cheryl Langdon-Orr" <langdonorr@gmail.com<mailto:langdonorr@gmail.com>> wrote: I was hoping for clear "middle ground text" but failing that I believe my balance approach means supported for option 3, both proposals to be published and seek any feedback from the Community during Public Comment. On Mar 2, 2018 18:15, "Arasteh" <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> wrote: Dear All I have supported Thiago proposal as also supported by Jorge. I therefore maintain my support Regards Kavouss Sent from my iPhone On 2 Mar 2018, at 07:45, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> wrote: All, We need to come to consensus on how to deal with the two proposed texts resulting from "Note 4.1." I've reviewed the captioning, chat, email list & draft to figure out the most appropriate way forward, and a clear result emerges. On this point only, I'm extending the deadline to 20:00 UTC. (Any other points, the deadline is still 18:00 UTC.) The bottom line is this: Unless one or both texts ("as is" or with agreed modifications) emerges as a consensus choice (i.e., "a position where ... most agree") between now (06:30 UTC) and 20:00 UTC, neither text will be in the Draft Report. Please quickly indicate your support for one of the following alternatives: 1. Support first proposal only. 2. Support second proposal only. 3. Support both proposals. 4. No change; neither text will be in the Report. Thank you. The draft report is attached in Word and PDF. In addition, I found it helpful to pull together a detailed timeline to best understand where we are and how we got here. The long version of the timeline is attached. The chat and captioning are here<https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=79434430>. The short version of the timeline is this: * We discussed Note 4.1 on the call. The objective was identified as "showing the public that we took their comments into account." We ran through various alternatives, which had little support and a few objections. I noted that nothing was jelling. * Based on the various alternatives I suggested a "middle ground." * There seemed to be support for this approach and I said "I think we can take that as the result of 4.1." There was no objection and we moved on to the rest of the call. * As the call was winding up, Thiago wrote in chat, "On the outstanding point 4.1, which is outstanding I understand, may I try to lend you a hand in finding that delicate balance?" and provided some text. The first part was largely the same as text that was objected to earlier in the call; the second part was new. * The call was breaking up and there was no discussion of this suggestion, though Kavouss and Jorge supported it in the chat. We noted that the proposal could be reviewed on the list. * In the Draft Report, I included both proposed texts -- the text I prepared based on the "middle ground" discussion in the group and the text that Thiago put in the chat. Procedurally, we are in a somewhat muddled position. First, this was not actually an outstanding point at the end of the call, so I was mistaken in treating it as if it were. Second, while the Draft Report makes it look like both proposals could end up in the Report, the second suggestion (from the end of the call) was intended to be a replacement for the first one (identified as the "result of 4.1" earlier in the call). A hyper-technical view would be that the second suggestion was out of order and should not be considered. We would then have one suggestion and life would be simpler. Another hyper-technical view would be that the suggestions were intended to be alternatives and must be treated as a "one or the other (or neither)" decision. I think it's simpler (and less technical) to look at it this way: We have two proposals. Both are possibilities. Neither text was really discussed on the call. The first text was based on a conceptual understanding that seemed to get traction, but the text wasn't discussed. The second text was suggested at the very end of the call and wasn't discussed either. We have less than 24 hours before this Draft Report must be submitted, and it must be the consensus view of the Subgroup. With this lack of consideration, neither text can claim to be the consensus view of the Subgroup and a "no objections" approach would be inappropriate. As such, unless one or both texts ("as is" or with agreed modifications) emerges as a consensus choice (i.e., "a position where ... most agree") between now (06:30 UTC) and 22:00 UTC, neither text will be in the Draft Report. Please quickly indicate your support for one of the following alternatives: 1. Support first proposal only. 2. Support second proposal only. 3. Support both proposals. 4. No change; neither text will be in the Report. Greg On Thu, Mar 1, 2018 at 12:07 PM Raphaël BEAUREGARD-LACROIX <raphael.beauregardlacroix@sciencespo.fr<mailto:raphael.beauregardlacroix@sciencespo.fr>> wrote: Dear all, Would it be possible to keep both the first (generic) statement and the second, more specific one? While it is slightly repetitive, the second can serve as an example to the first. Best, 2018-03-01 15:40 GMT+01:00 <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>: Dear Greg and all, If I understand your email below correctly, and consistent with what was agreed yesterday, you are consulting the list on the latest text that Thiago proposed on note 4.1, i.e. the following addition, right?: “The late suggestion added to the report that “Further Discussions of Jurisdiction-Related Concerns” are needed, in particular on jurisdictional immunities, found echo in several comments subsequently received, but these comments did not bring any changes to the report, nor could they be considered in detail, on the understanding that the existing support for “further discussions” to address unresolved concerns, including in other fora, had already been acknowledged” As said yesterday I have no objections to such an addition. Best regards Jorge Von: Ws2-jurisdiction [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org<mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org>] Im Auftrag von Greg Shatan Gesendet: Donnerstag, 1. März 2018 00:22 An: ws2-jurisdiction <ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org<mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org>> Betreff: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Fwd: PLEASE REVIEW: Almost Final Draft Report for Review before Submission to Plenary on 2 March All, Attached in Word and PDF is the almost final Draft Report, based on today’s call. This is also available in Google Docs at https://docs.google.com/document/d/1rdMJyvZdyN9TApT6gx_3NwpdvIL7YKHEUD7tNfLf.... Please review and comment. I have marked in the margin the sections corresponding to the “Notes” in the chart distributed before today’s call. In particular please review and respond to the suggested text on page 12 at the end of the “Overview of the Work of the Subgroup.” There are two proposed additions that grew out of Note 4.1. The first received broad support on the call without noted objections. The second received both support and objections on the call. Since there was no clear path forward from the call, it is important that as many participants as possible give this careful consideration and provide their views on this second proposed addition. This text reads as follows: The late suggestion added to the report that “Further Discussions of Jurisdiction-Related Concerns” are needed, in particular on jurisdictional immunities, found echo in several comments subsequently received, but these comments did not bring any changes to the report, nor could they be considered in detail, on the understanding that the existing support for “further discussions” to address unresolved concerns, including in other fora, had already been acknowledged. I look forward to hearing from you all, with regard to the report as a whole and any specific aspects, in particular the proposed text above. Since the final draft must be submitted no later than 23:59 UTC on 2 March, I am setting a deadline of 18:00 UTC on 2 March for all responses. Thank you! Greg _________________________________________________________________ This message is being sent from a Law Firm and may contain CONFIDENTIAL or PRIVILEGED information. If you are not the intended recipient, do not print, copy or distribute this message or any attachments. Advise the sender immediately by reply e-mail, and delete this message and attachments without retaining a copy. Disclaimer The information contained in this communication from the sender is confidential. It is intended solely for use by the recipient and others authorized to receive it. If you are not the recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or taking action in relation of the contents of this information is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. This email has been scanned for viruses and malware, and may have been automatically archived by Mimecast Ltd, an innovator in Software as a Service (SaaS) for business. Providing a safer and more useful place for your human generated data. Specializing in; Security, archiving and compliance. To find out more Click Here<http://www.mimecast.com/products/>. _______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org<mailto: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> <Note 4.1 Timeline.docx> <CCWG-Accountability-WS2-Jurisdiction-Final Draft v1.2.7.docx> <CCWG-Accountability-WS2-Jurisdiction-Final Draft v1.2.7.pdf> _______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org<mailto:Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction _______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org<mailto:Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
Similarly, I can only support option 4. Jeffrey J. Neuman Senior Vice President |Valideus USA | Com Laude USA 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600 Mclean, VA 22102, United States E: jeff.neuman@valideus.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@valideus.com> or jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> T: +1.703.635.7514 M: +1.202.549.5079 @Jintlaw From: Ws2-jurisdiction [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Brian Scarpelli Sent: Friday, March 2, 2018 2:02 PM To: ws2-jurisdiction <ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] CONSENSUS CALL ON NOTE 4.1 TEXTS: Almost Final Draft Report for Review before Submission to Plenary on 2 March Dear all, I vote in support of option #4. Also, I oppose options #2 and #3. -Brian Brian Scarpelli Senior Policy Counsel +1 517-507-1446<mailto:+1%20517-507-1446> | bscarpelli@actonline.org<mailto:bscarpelli@actonline.org> ACT | The App Association 1401 K St NW (Ste 501) Washington, DC 20005 From: Ws2-jurisdiction [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Cheryl Langdon-Orr Sent: Friday, March 2, 2018 1:58 PM To: ws2-jurisdiction <ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org<mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] CONSENSUS CALL ON NOTE 4.1 TEXTS: Almost Final Draft Report for Review before Submission to Plenary on 2 March I note some support for "no change" and as that's already well established language I can certainly live with that outcome... Please note, I had left the call just before ending to join another call, so wasn't actually present at the moment of any discussion, of the alternative to the middle ground of "Option 1" from earlier in the call but (still a good fall back as well in my view) so my response was specifically to Greg's urgent Concensus Call, to the list, based on the background provided in that email. On Mar 2, 2018 23:34, "Cheryl Langdon-Orr" <langdonorr@gmail.com<mailto:langdonorr@gmail.com>> wrote: I was hoping for clear "middle ground text" but failing that I believe my balance approach means supported for option 3, both proposals to be published and seek any feedback from the Community during Public Comment. On Mar 2, 2018 18:15, "Arasteh" <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> wrote: Dear All I have supported Thiago proposal as also supported by Jorge. I therefore maintain my support Regards Kavouss Sent from my iPhone On 2 Mar 2018, at 07:45, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> wrote: All, We need to come to consensus on how to deal with the two proposed texts resulting from "Note 4.1." I've reviewed the captioning, chat, email list & draft to figure out the most appropriate way forward, and a clear result emerges. On this point only, I'm extending the deadline to 20:00 UTC. (Any other points, the deadline is still 18:00 UTC.) The bottom line is this: Unless one or both texts ("as is" or with agreed modifications) emerges as a consensus choice (i.e., "a position where ... most agree") between now (06:30 UTC) and 20:00 UTC, neither text will be in the Draft Report. Please quickly indicate your support for one of the following alternatives: 1. Support first proposal only. 2. Support second proposal only. 3. Support both proposals. 4. No change; neither text will be in the Report. Thank you. The draft report is attached in Word and PDF. In addition, I found it helpful to pull together a detailed timeline to best understand where we are and how we got here. The long version of the timeline is attached. The chat and captioning are here<https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=79434430>. The short version of the timeline is this: * We discussed Note 4.1 on the call. The objective was identified as "showing the public that we took their comments into account." We ran through various alternatives, which had little support and a few objections. I noted that nothing was jelling. * Based on the various alternatives I suggested a "middle ground." * There seemed to be support for this approach and I said "I think we can take that as the result of 4.1." There was no objection and we moved on to the rest of the call. * As the call was winding up, Thiago wrote in chat, "On the outstanding point 4.1, which is outstanding I understand, may I try to lend you a hand in finding that delicate balance?" and provided some text. The first part was largely the same as text that was objected to earlier in the call; the second part was new. * The call was breaking up and there was no discussion of this suggestion, though Kavouss and Jorge supported it in the chat. We noted that the proposal could be reviewed on the list. * In the Draft Report, I included both proposed texts -- the text I prepared based on the "middle ground" discussion in the group and the text that Thiago put in the chat. Procedurally, we are in a somewhat muddled position. First, this was not actually an outstanding point at the end of the call, so I was mistaken in treating it as if it were. Second, while the Draft Report makes it look like both proposals could end up in the Report, the second suggestion (from the end of the call) was intended to be a replacement for the first one (identified as the "result of 4.1" earlier in the call). A hyper-technical view would be that the second suggestion was out of order and should not be considered. We would then have one suggestion and life would be simpler. Another hyper-technical view would be that the suggestions were intended to be alternatives and must be treated as a "one or the other (or neither)" decision. I think it's simpler (and less technical) to look at it this way: We have two proposals. Both are possibilities. Neither text was really discussed on the call. The first text was based on a conceptual understanding that seemed to get traction, but the text wasn't discussed. The second text was suggested at the very end of the call and wasn't discussed either. We have less than 24 hours before this Draft Report must be submitted, and it must be the consensus view of the Subgroup. With this lack of consideration, neither text can claim to be the consensus view of the Subgroup and a "no objections" approach would be inappropriate. As such, unless one or both texts ("as is" or with agreed modifications) emerges as a consensus choice (i.e., "a position where ... most agree") between now (06:30 UTC) and 22:00 UTC, neither text will be in the Draft Report. Please quickly indicate your support for one of the following alternatives: 1. Support first proposal only. 2. Support second proposal only. 3. Support both proposals. 4. No change; neither text will be in the Report. Greg On Thu, Mar 1, 2018 at 12:07 PM Raphaël BEAUREGARD-LACROIX <raphael.beauregardlacroix@sciencespo.fr<mailto:raphael.beauregardlacroix@sciencespo.fr>> wrote: Dear all, Would it be possible to keep both the first (generic) statement and the second, more specific one? While it is slightly repetitive, the second can serve as an example to the first. Best, 2018-03-01 15:40 GMT+01:00 <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>: Dear Greg and all, If I understand your email below correctly, and consistent with what was agreed yesterday, you are consulting the list on the latest text that Thiago proposed on note 4.1, i.e. the following addition, right?: “The late suggestion added to the report that “Further Discussions of Jurisdiction-Related Concerns” are needed, in particular on jurisdictional immunities, found echo in several comments subsequently received, but these comments did not bring any changes to the report, nor could they be considered in detail, on the understanding that the existing support for “further discussions” to address unresolved concerns, including in other fora, had already been acknowledged” As said yesterday I have no objections to such an addition. Best regards Jorge Von: Ws2-jurisdiction [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org<mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org>] Im Auftrag von Greg Shatan Gesendet: Donnerstag, 1. März 2018 00:22 An: ws2-jurisdiction <ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org<mailto:ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org>> Betreff: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Fwd: PLEASE REVIEW: Almost Final Draft Report for Review before Submission to Plenary on 2 March All, Attached in Word and PDF is the almost final Draft Report, based on today’s call. This is also available in Google Docs at https://docs.google.com/document/d/1rdMJyvZdyN9TApT6gx_3NwpdvIL7YKHEUD7tNfLf.... Please review and comment. I have marked in the margin the sections corresponding to the “Notes” in the chart distributed before today’s call. In particular please review and respond to the suggested text on page 12 at the end of the “Overview of the Work of the Subgroup.” There are two proposed additions that grew out of Note 4.1. The first received broad support on the call without noted objections. The second received both support and objections on the call. Since there was no clear path forward from the call, it is important that as many participants as possible give this careful consideration and provide their views on this second proposed addition. This text reads as follows: The late suggestion added to the report that “Further Discussions of Jurisdiction-Related Concerns” are needed, in particular on jurisdictional immunities, found echo in several comments subsequently received, but these comments did not bring any changes to the report, nor could they be considered in detail, on the understanding that the existing support for “further discussions” to address unresolved concerns, including in other fora, had already been acknowledged. I look forward to hearing from you all, with regard to the report as a whole and any specific aspects, in particular the proposed text above. Since the final draft must be submitted no later than 23:59 UTC on 2 March, I am setting a deadline of 18:00 UTC on 2 March for all responses. Thank you! Greg _________________________________________________________________ This message is being sent from a Law Firm and may contain CONFIDENTIAL or PRIVILEGED information. If you are not the intended recipient, do not print, copy or distribute this message or any attachments. Advise the sender immediately by reply e-mail, and delete this message and attachments without retaining a copy. Disclaimer The information contained in this communication from the sender is confidential. It is intended solely for use by the recipient and others authorized to receive it. If you are not the recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or taking action in relation of the contents of this information is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. This email has been scanned for viruses and malware, and may have been automatically archived by Mimecast Ltd, an innovator in Software as a Service (SaaS) for business. Providing a safer and more useful place for your human generated data. Specializing in; Security, archiving and compliance. To find out more Click Here<http://www.mimecast.com/products/>. _______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org<mailto: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> <Note 4.1 Timeline.docx> <CCWG-Accountability-WS2-Jurisdiction-Final Draft v1.2.7.docx> <CCWG-Accountability-WS2-Jurisdiction-Final Draft v1.2.7.pdf> _______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org<mailto:Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction _______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org<mailto:Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
participants (6)
-
Brian Scarpelli -
Cheryl Langdon-Orr -
cw＠christopherwilkinson.eu -
Greg Shatan -
Jeff Neuman -
Paul Rosenzweig