[CCWG-ACCT] [Ws2-jurisdiction] Jurisdiction Subgroup. Draft Report. Statement of Brazil. Annex. To be annexed to the draft report. For consideration by the CCWG.

Mon Oct 16 16:25:04 UTC 2017

Thank you, Milton.

I think Milton's statement raises the question of how do viewpoints such as
Milton's, which seem to be aligned with the thinking of many in the
Subgroup, get the same prominence as the dissents, which seem to represent
the views of only a few in the Subgroup?  These views are not really
reflected in the Report, since they don't relate to recommendations in the
Subgroup Report.

Perhaps it would be fair, where the dissents are not merely minority
viewpoints on the recommendations made by the Subgroup, for further
statements to be allowed within a certain timeframe.  Otherwise, we have
"dissents" without any indication of the viewpoint(s) they are dissenting
from (except as characterized by the dissenter, which would hardly do those
other viewpoints justice.).

This also raises the question whether the Charter intends that these
Subgroup dissents are intended to be part of the package sent out for
Public Comment, or are merely to be read by the Plenary.  If it is the
former, then it is clear to me that accommodations should be made for other
viewpoints.  Since dissents are not subject to first/second reading or
Plenary consensus consideration, this would not pose a procedural problem,
while greatly improving the substance of the package.  Even if it is only
the latter (these are internal documents only), having a record of a
viewpoint other than minority viewpoint(s) would seem quite important.

Greg

On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 11:54 AM, John Laprise <jlaprise at gmail.com> wrote:

> +lots
>
> On Mon, Oct 16, 2017, 10:44 AM Mueller, Milton L <milton at gatech.edu>
> wrote:
>
>> This is a disappointing statement, but it needs to be understood that
>> this is a dissent from a tiny minority whose ideas were not accepted
>> because they were unrealistic and unattainable.
>>
>>
>>
>> It was already known that proposals for an intergovernmental organization
>> governed by some as-yet-nonexistent form of international law had support
>> from only two or three people, and overwhelmingly strong opposition from
>> everyone else. And it was also clear that petitioning the Trump
>> administration and a Republican Congress for an act of Congress granting
>> ICANN immunity would be a blunder of unprecedented magnitude that would
>> achieve exactly the opposite of the proponents’ stated objectives.
>>
>>
>>
>> While a small minority was wasting time on a futile attempt to turn the
>> clock back to 1997, the rest of us were confronting real, practical
>> jurisdictional issues. We came up with tangible progress on OFAC and choice
>> of law. These recommendations enjoy overwhelming consensus. Thus, I do not
>> see that this dissent causes any problems. Let them display their petulance
>> and in Abu Dhabi  we can discuss and debate it as needed to expose their
>> fallacies and move on.
>>
>>
>>
>> Dr. Milton Mueller
>>
>> Professor, School of Public Policy
>>
>> Georgia Institute of Technology
>>
>>
>>
>> [image: IGP_logo_gold block_email sig]
>> <http://www.internetgovernance.org/>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* ws2-jurisdiction-bounces at icann.org [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-
>> bounces at icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Thiago Braz Jardim Oliveira
>> *Sent:* Saturday, October 14, 2017 9:14 PM
>> *To:* accountability-cross-community at icann.org
>>
>>
>> *Cc:* acct-staff at icann.org; gac at icann.org; GAC <gac at gac.icann.org>;
>> ws2-jurisdiction <ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org>
>>
>> *Subject:* [Ws2-jurisdiction] Jurisdiction Subgroup. Draft Report.
>> Statement of Brazil. Annex. To be annexed to the draft report. For
>> consideration by the CCWG.
>>
>>
>>
>> Dear all,
>>
>>
>>
>> On behalf of the Brazilian Government, I hereby submit the "Statement of
>> Brazil" and its annex, which are to be annexed to the draft report of the
>> jurisdiction subgroup, submitted on 11 October 2017, for consideration by
>> the CCWG plenary.
>>
>>
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>>
>>
>> Thiago
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> *De:* ws2-jurisdiction-bounces at icann.org [ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@
>> icann.org] em nome de Greg Shatan [gregshatanipc at gmail.com]
>> *Enviado:* quinta-feira, 12 de outubro de 2017 23:29
>> *Para:* accountability-cross-community at icann.org
>> *Cc:* acct-staff at icann.org; ws2-jurisdiction
>> *Assunto:* Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Jurisdiction Subgroup Draft Report for
>> CCWG-Accountability Plenary Review
>>
>> All,
>>
>>
>>
>> One of the Subgroup members pointed out a minor editing error in the
>> document.  On pages 13-14, there were several mentions of the RAA, when in
>> fact the language quoted and discussed was from the ICANN Terms and
>> Conditions for Registrar Accreditation Application.  (The reference was
>> correct in the Executive Summary.)  This has now been fixed in the attached.
>>
>>
>>
>> Greg
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 10:10 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> All,
>>
>>
>>
>> Some minor formatting errors crept into the Report when it was converted
>> from Word to PDF.  A new PDF of the report is attached. I've checked each
>> page to confirm that the formatting errors were resolved.
>>
>>
>>
>> Thank you to Jorge Cancio for catching this problem!
>>
>>
>>
>> Greg
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 7:53 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> All,
>>
>>
>>
>> I am pleased to submit the Draft Report from the Jurisdiction Subgroup
>> for consideration by the CCWG-Accountability Plenary.
>>
>>
>>
>> It is my understanding that a minority viewpoint is expected to be
>> submitted.  In the interests of time, this will be submitted to the Plenary
>> separately from the Draft Report.
>>
>>
>>
>> *During the preparation of the OFAC Recommendation, the Subgroup
>> considered an email where a registrar declined to do business with a
>> potential reseller, based on the registrar’s policy of not doing business
>> with people with Iranian passports.  The Subgroup also learned that this
>> registrar, which had been registering domains for a number of Iranian
>> nationals, refused to continue to do business with them.  The Subgroup has
>> concluded that, to the extent these instances are related to OFAC, the
>> concerns raised by these instances are adequately covered in the
>> Recommendation already without any additional changes.  This is not in any
>> way a comment on the validity of these particular concerns.  The Subgroup
>> will consider creating "stress tests" based on these scenarios.*
>>
>>
>>
>> I look forward to the Plenary's reading of the Draft Report.
>>
>>
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>>
>>
>> Greg Shatan
>>
>> *Rapporteur*
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20171016/549cfdf4/attachment-0001.html>